Microsoft Flight Simulator

AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and Intel Arc B570 present a pairing that lands in the lower-mid tier of tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, with a combo rank of 2988 out of 3714 tested combos. The benchmark data shows a system that can handle the simulator at playable frame rates, but only when settings are moderated carefully. At 4K, the combination falls short of the 60 FPS threshold across all presets, while 1440p and 1080p offer viable paths to smooth gameplay, albeit with compromises in visual fidelity.

Best Settings per Resolution

The measured FPS data reveals a clear ceiling for this hardware combination at each resolution. At 3840x2160, none of the four tested presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra) reach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The closest is Low, which delivers an average of 51 FPS. Medium drops to 40 FPS (with a min of 34 and max of 46), High falls to 30 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 28 FPS. Since no preset hits 60 FPS, there is no "best playable setting" at 4K — the verdict data confirms this, listing no playable settings for this resolution.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation improves. The Low preset achieves an average of 69 FPS, which clears the 60 FPS threshold and becomes the best playable setting. Medium falls short at 54 FPS (min 46, max 62), High drops to 41 FPS, and Ultra manages only 39 FPS. The verdict data designates Low as the best setting at this resolution, with an average FPS of 69.

At 1920x1080, the system finds its most comfortable ground. The Low preset delivers 86 FPS on average, and Medium reaches 67 FPS (min 57, max 77), both above the 60 FPS line. High sits just below at 50 FPS, and Ultra trails at 48 FPS. The verdict data identifies Medium as the best playable setting at 1080p, with an average of 67 FPS. This means users can enjoy a moderate visual upgrade over Low while still staying above the playability threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and Intel Arc B570 combination ranks 2988th out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the pairing in the lower 20% of all tested configurations. The percentile data for the individual components tells a slightly different story: the CPU sits at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 65th percentile among all GPUs. This suggests the CPU is a high-end part by general benchmark standards, but the GPU holds the pairing back in this specific game.

In practical terms, this rank means the combo outperforms roughly 726 other tested configurations but falls behind the vast majority. The gap between the CPU's strong general performance and the combo's low game-specific rank indicates that Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily dependent on the GPU for this pairing. The CPU's 92nd percentile ranking does not translate into top-tier game performance because the Arc B570 caps the system's ability to render the simulator's demanding visuals.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows an interesting dynamic between the CPU and GPU across resolutions. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly the limiting factor. The CPU's high benchmark scores — such as 22,807 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 4,704 in Passmark single-thread — cannot compensate for the GPU's rendering limits at 4K. The FPS drops from 51 at Low to 28 at Ultra, a reduction of 23 FPS (45%) as settings increase, demonstrating the GPU's workload scaling at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the balance shifts slightly. The FPS range from Low (69) to Ultra (39) shows a 30 FPS spread, indicating the GPU still dominates performance scaling. However, the fact that Medium (54 FPS) nearly reaches the playable threshold suggests the CPU can feed the GPU adequately at this resolution, but the GPU still cannot push Medium past 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the CPU begins to play a more meaningful role. The FPS spread from Low (86) to Ultra (48) is 38 FPS, and the system finally clears 60 FPS on Medium (67 FPS). The smaller pixel count reduces GPU load, allowing the CPU's strong single-thread performance (4,704 Passmark) to help maintain higher frame rates. The scaling from 1440p Low (69 FPS) to 1080p Low (86 FPS) represents a 24.6% improvement, while the jump from 1440p Medium (54 FPS) to 1080p Medium (67 FPS) is a 24.1% gain — both showing that resolution reduction provides consistent FPS boosts.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K resolution?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 51 on Low settings, which falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium averages 40 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The verdict data lists no playable settings at 4K.

Q: What is the best playable preset at 1440p?

A: Low is the only preset at 2560x1440 that clears 60 FPS, with an average of 69 FPS. Medium falls short at 54 FPS, and High and Ultra average 41 FPS and 39 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the system perform at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the combo achieves an average of 67 FPS, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS. This is the best playable setting at this resolution, clearing the 60 FPS threshold by 7 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for performance in this game?

A: The GPU appears to be the primary bottleneck at all resolutions. The CPU ranks in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, but the combo ranks 2988th out of 3714 for this game. The GPU's 65th percentile ranking aligns more closely with the system's overall game performance, indicating it limits frame rates.

Q: What is the average FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low averages 86 FPS while Ultra averages 48 FPS. This represents a 38 FPS drop, or a 44.2% reduction in average frame rate when moving from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: Does the system meet the 60 FPS threshold at any resolution with High settings?

A: No. At 1080p, High averages 50 FPS; at 1440p, High averages 41 FPS; and at 4K, High averages 30 FPS. None of these reach the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Measured FPS Breakdown

3840x2160

• Low: average 51 FPS
• Medium: average 40 FPS, min 34 FPS, max 46 FPS
• High: average 30 FPS
• Ultra: average 28 FPS

2560x1440

• Low: average 69 FPS
• Medium: average 54 FPS, min 46 FPS, max 62 FPS
• High: average 41 FPS
• Ultra: average 39 FPS

1920x1080

• Low: average 86 FPS
• Medium: average 67 FPS, min 57 FPS, max 77 FPS
• High: average 50 FPS
• Ultra: average 48 FPS

The data shows a consistent pattern: as resolution increases, the average FPS drops across all settings. The only presets with min/max data are Medium at each resolution, which provides some insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p Medium, the min of 57 FPS and max of 77 FPS show a 20 FPS variance, while at 1440p Medium, the range is 46 to 62 FPS (16 FPS variance), and at 4K Medium, it is 34 to 46 FPS (12 FPS variance). This tightening range at higher resolutions suggests the GPU becomes more consistently loaded, reducing frame time spikes.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but with significant caveats depending on resolution. At 1920x1080, the system is fully playable on Low and Medium presets, with Medium delivering 67 FPS average as the best visual quality option that clears the 60 FPS threshold. At 2560x1440, only the Low preset is playable, hitting 69 FPS on average. At 3840x2160, the system cannot achieve 60 FPS on any preset, with the best effort being 51 FPS on Low.

The verdict data confirms this assessment: 1080p offers playable settings in Low and Medium, 1440p offers only Low, and 4K offers none. Users targeting 1080p can enjoy a reasonable balance of visuals and performance with Medium settings, while those at 1440p must accept Low settings for smooth gameplay. 4K gaming is not viable for this pairing.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Examining the nearest rivals for both components provides context for what other hardware would behave similarly. For the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D, the closest matching CPUs by average benchmark score are the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (0.1% higher score), Intel Xeon w5-2545 (0.2% lower), Intel Core i9-14900 (0.5% higher), and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 470 (0.7% lower). These CPUs would offer comparable processing performance in this game, though their specific game performance could vary.

For the Intel Arc B570, the nearest GPU rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% higher score), Intel Arc A750 (0.1% lower), NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (0.4% higher), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (0.5% lower). The Arc A750 is particularly relevant as it shares the same architecture family and would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The RTX 3070 Mobile, despite being a laptop part, shows similar overall benchmark performance and could serve as a comparable alternative in terms of game performance.

These rival comparisons suggest that swapping either component for its nearest benchmark equivalent would yield minimal changes in frame rates. The system's performance is tightly clustered around these alternatives, meaning users with any of these CPUs or GPUs paired with the other component would expect similar results in this game.