Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X sits in a tightly contested segment of the database. Its average benchmark score of 41,376 places it within a fraction of a percent of several recent mobile and desktop parts. The closest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H with an average score of 41,263, a delta of just 0.3%. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41,215, also 0.4% behind, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 matches at 41,208, another 0.4% delta. On the other side, the Intel Core i7-14650HX posts 41,576, which is 0.5% ahead of the 5900X. These deltas are negligible in real-world terms; the 5900X and these four rivals would trade blows depending on the workload, thermals, and platform memory configuration. The 5900X's 87th percentile ranking among all CPUs reinforces that this is a high-end part, but the surrounding field is crowded with parts that deliver essentially identical aggregate throughput.

For the Intel Arc B370, the situation is starkly different. This integrated GPU, based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, records an average benchmark score of 1,184 from the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Its nearest rivals are all legacy discrete parts: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1,186 (0.2% ahead), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1,192 (0.7% ahead). The AMD FirePro M2000 trails slightly at 1,168, a 1.4% gap. The B370's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs means it is not competing with modern discrete graphics cards; instead, it lands in the same performance envelope as GPUs from over a decade ago. For a flight simulator that demands sustained rendering throughput, this is a critical limitation. The data suggests that while the CPU is a top-tier performer, the GPU is the bottleneck in this pairing.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 9 5900X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3,428 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this system in the bottom 8% of all configurations in the database. The rank reflects the GPU's severe constraint: a 5th percentile GPU paired with an 87th percentile CPU does not translate into playable performance in this title. The combo rank is not a measure of component quality in isolation, but rather of how the two parts work together for this specific game. The CPU's strong multi-threaded scores, such as 16,262 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 39,002 in PassMark multi-thread, are largely irrelevant when the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering load. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for pushing both CPU and GPU, but at the resolutions tested, the Arc B370 is the limiting factor.

The rank of 3,428 out of 3,714 is a clear signal: this is not a configuration designed for high-fidelity flight simulation. Systems with even modest discrete GPUs would likely place higher. The data shows that the 5900X's capabilities, including 12 cores and 24 threads, are wasted in this pairing for this game, as the frame rates are bounded by the GPU's output. The combo rank should be interpreted as a warning for anyone considering this specific CPU-GPU match for Flight Simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four quality presets. All figures are averages unless otherwise noted. At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are consistently below playable thresholds. With Low settings, the average is 30 FPS. Medium averages 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High drops to 18 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 17 FPS. None of these settings approach the 60 FPS playable threshold. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 13 FPS, indicating that the GPU is saturated even at the lowest quality preset.

At 2560x1440, the numbers improve but remain far from playable. Low settings produce an average of 41 FPS. Medium averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High drops to 24 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 23 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium is 9 FPS, while the drop from Medium to High is 8 FPS, showing a steep performance cliff as quality increases. At 1440p, even Low settings fail to reach 60 FPS by a margin of 19 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings yield an average of 50 FPS, the highest figure recorded across all tests. Medium averages 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High drops to 30 FPS, and Ultra falls to 28 FPS. The 1080p Low result is the only configuration that comes close to the 60 FPS threshold, but it still falls 10 FPS short. The scaling from 1080p Low to 4K Low shows a 20 FPS drop, highlighting the GPU's limited headroom. The data indicates that this system cannot maintain 60 FPS at any resolution or preset combination 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 lists no playable settings at any resolution: 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080 all return empty results for playable settings. This means that even at 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS of 50 does not clear the 60 FPS bar. The best possible experience is at 1080p Low, where the system averages 50 FPS, but this still results in noticeable frame pacing issues and misses the target.

At 4K, the system is effectively unplayable, with averages ranging from 17 to 30 FPS depending on the preset. At 1440p, the situation is slightly better but still unacceptable for smooth gameplay, with averages between 23 and 41 FPS. At 1080p, the system approaches playability at Low settings but falls short. The verdict is unambiguous: this combination of CPU and GPU does not meet the performance requirements for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any tested resolution. The CPU is capable, but the GPU is the limiting factor. Users seeking a playable experience would need to lower the resolution below 1080p or accept frame rates well below 60 FPS, neither of which is a satisfactory outcome for a flight simulator that benefits from smooth visuals.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor in this pairing. The Ryzen 9 5900X is a high-end CPU with an average benchmark score of 41,376 and an 87th percentile ranking. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide ample compute for simulation logic, AI traffic, and physics calculations. However, the Intel Arc B370, with its 5th percentile GPU ranking and average score of 1,184, is a severe bottleneck. The FPS scaling across resolutions demonstrates this: from 1080p Low (50 FPS) to 1440p Low (41 FPS) to 4K Low (30 FPS), the frame rate drops by roughly 20 FPS per resolution step. This is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering pipeline is saturated.

The CPU's role becomes more apparent when looking at the preset scaling at a fixed resolution. At 1080p, going from Low to Medium drops the average from 50 to 39 FPS, a 22% reduction. From Medium to High, it drops to 30 FPS, another 23% reduction. High to Ultra drops to 28 FPS, a smaller 7% reduction. This pattern suggests that the GPU is already struggling at Medium settings, and the CPU has headroom that is not being utilized. At 4K, the preset scaling is compressed: Low (30 FPS), Medium (23 FPS), High (18 FPS), Ultra (17 FPS). The small differences between High and Ultra at 4K indicate that the GPU is fully maxed out, and additional quality settings yield diminishing returns.

The data indicates that at lower resolutions and settings, the CPU plays a more significant role in maintaining frame times, but even then, the GPU's absolute performance ceiling prevents the system from reaching playable levels. At higher resolutions, the GPU is the sole determinant of performance. In summary, the CPU is underutilized in this game due to the GPU's limitations, and no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the Arc B370's rendering throughput.

FAQ

Q: What is the best FPS this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other configuration reaches 50 FPS; the next best is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 Low.

Q: Can this system run the game at 4K?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 17 (Ultra) to 30 (Low), all well below the 60 FPS playable threshold. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 5900X has an average benchmark score of 41,376. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is 0.3% behind, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is 0.4% behind, and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 is 0.4% behind. The Intel Core i7-14650HX is 0.5% ahead.

Q: Is the GPU comparable to any modern discrete graphics card?

A: No. The Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals are legacy parts like the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% ahead), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% ahead), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% ahead). The GPU ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the FPS difference between 1080p and 4K at Low settings?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1920x1080 to 41 at 2560x1440, and then to 30 at 3840x2160. This represents a 20 FPS reduction from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Does changing from High to Ultra settings matter at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, High averages 24 FPS and Ultra averages 23 FPS, a difference of only 1 FPS. The GPU is already saturated at High, so Ultra offers no meaningful performance penalty but also no visual improvement in terms of frame rate stability.