Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a highly constrained experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with the integrated graphics solution acting as the definitive bottleneck across every tested resolution and preset. The recorded data shows that no configuration reaches the 60 FPS threshold, and the gap between the CPU’s substantial processing capabilities and the GPU’s limited output is stark. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, the division of labor between the two components, and what users can expect from this combination.

CPU and GPU Roles

Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for demanding both significant CPU throughput and substantial graphics processing, but in this specific pairing, the division of labor is heavily skewed. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, running at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its benchmark scores are robust, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16262 and a single-core score of 1527, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs tested in the database. The processor’s average benchmark score of 41376 confirms that it is not the limiting factor in this system.

The Intel Arc B390, however, is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel’s 3 nm process. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, with a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The GPU’s measured performance is minimal, as evidenced by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The disparity between the CPU’s percentile ranking and the GPU’s percentile ranking is the clearest indicator of where the performance ceiling lies.

At 3840x2160 resolution, the scaling between presets reveals the GPU’s struggle. The average frame rate at Low settings is 33 FPS, but dropping to Medium reduces the average to 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra presets yield only 19 FPS. This steep decline from Low to Medium, followed by a plateau at the higher presets, suggests that the GPU reaches its computational limits quickly. The CPU, even with its 12 cores and 24 threads, cannot compensate for the graphics processor’s inability to handle the increased workload at higher settings. The data shows that the GPU is the dominant constraint at 4K, as the frame rates cluster in a narrow band regardless of how much additional load is placed on the system.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with slightly higher absolute numbers. Low settings produce an average of 45 FPS, Medium drops to 35 FPS, High falls to 26 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 25 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium is 10 FPS, which again points to the GPU’s limited fill rate and shader processing capacity. The CPU’s role here is to feed the GPU with draw calls and simulation data, but the Arc B390’s 1536 shading units are insufficient to translate that data into higher frame rates. The recorded data indicates that even at a more manageable resolution, the GPU remains the primary bottleneck.

At 1920x1080, the lowest tested resolution, the results are closer to playable but still fall short. Low settings deliver an average of 56 FPS, which is just 4 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold. Medium achieves 43 FPS, High drops to 33 FPS, and Ultra yields 31 FPS. The scaling from Low to Medium is a 13 FPS reduction, and the incremental drops continue as settings increase. The CPU’s strong single-thread performance, as shown by its Geekbench single-core score of 2083 and 3DMark single-thread score of 941, helps at lower settings where the GPU is less stressed, but the overall pattern confirms that the integrated GPU cannot sustain high frame rates even at 1080p.

The relationship between resolution and settings is telling. Across all three resolutions, the gap between Low and Medium is consistently the largest single-step drop, while the difference between High and Ultra is minimal or nonexistent. This indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth, listed as system dependent, and its 24 ROPs are the hard limits. The CPU’s contribution is more evident at 1080p Low, where the 56 FPS average suggests that the processor can keep up with the simulation’s demands, but the GPU still caps the final output.

The Verdict

The verdict from the database is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level at any tested resolution or preset. The playable threshold is set at 60 FPS, and the recorded data shows that no configuration reaches that mark. At 3840x2160, the best result is 33 FPS at Low settings, which is less than 55% of the required threshold. At 2560x1440, the best result is 45 FPS at Low settings, still 15 FPS short of playable. At 1920x1080, the best result is 56 FPS at Low settings, a near miss but still below the 60 FPS line.

The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings for any resolution, and no best settings are recorded because the threshold is never met. The highest average frame rate across the entire test suite is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 Low, and even that configuration is not smooth enough to qualify as a playable experience under the database’s criteria. The combination of the Ryzen 9 5900X and Arc B390 is therefore unsuitable for this title if a consistent 60 FPS is the goal.

The GPU’s percentile ranking of 9 against all GPUs in the database reinforces this conclusion. The Arc B390’s average benchmark score of 1482 is a fraction of what a dedicated graphics card would produce, and the measured frame rates reflect that. The CPU’s percentile ranking of 87 indicates that the processor is more than capable, but the system’s overall performance is dragged down by the graphics solution. Users seeking a playable experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator would need to consider a different GPU entirely, as the integrated Arc B390 cannot handle the demands of this flight simulator.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X in the database’s benchmark rankings are all close in average score, with deltas of less than 1%. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average score of 41263, which is 0.3% higher than the Ryzen 9 5900X’s 41376. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41215, a 0.4% difference, and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 also scores 41208, another 0.4% delta. The Intel Core i7-14650HX is slightly ahead with a score of 41576, representing a -0.5% delta from the Ryzen 9 5900X. These processors would behave similarly in this game, meaning that swapping the Ryzen 9 5900X for any of these alternatives would not materially change the frame rates, as the GPU remains the bottleneck.

For the Intel Arc B390, the nearest rivals are all significantly older NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, a 1.3% delta, while the GeForce 800M scores 1460, a 1.5% delta. The GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, a 2.5% delta, and the GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, a 2.7% delta. These GPUs are all within 3% of the Arc B390’s performance, which means that a system with any of these graphics solutions would produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data suggests that the Arc B390 is functionally equivalent to these older entry-level GPUs, and the measured FPS breakdown would look very similar.

The implications for this specific combo are clear. If a user were to replace the Ryzen 9 5900X with an Intel Core Ultra 7 366H or a Core i7-14650HX, the frame rates would remain essentially the same because the GPU’s limitations dominate. Conversely, if the Arc B390 were swapped for a GeForce GT 710 or GT 520MX, the performance would also stay within a small margin. The bottleneck is so severe that the choice of CPU among these rivals is irrelevant; the GPU determines the outcome.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the system’s performance across three resolutions and four presets. At 3840x2160, the Low preset delivers an average of 33 FPS with no minimum or maximum recorded. Medium drops to an average of 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. High and Ultra both produce averages of 19 FPS, with no min or max values recorded for either. The spread from Low to Ultra is only 14 FPS, indicating that the GPU is saturated even at the lowest settings.

At 2560x1440, Low yields an average of 45 FPS, again with no min or max recorded. Medium produces an average of 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. High falls to 26 FPS, and Ultra reaches 25 FPS, both without min or max data. The Medium preset is the only one at this resolution with a recorded range, and the 10 FPS spread within that preset shows some variability, likely due to scene complexity or CPU overhead at certain moments.

At 1920x1080, the results are the strongest but still below the threshold. Low averages 56 FPS, a near miss for the 60 FPS target. Medium averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The Medium preset’s recorded range of 37 to 50 FPS demonstrates that even the best-case scenarios fall short of playable. The consistent absence of min and max values for the Low, High, and Ultra presets suggests that the database only captured average frame rates for those configurations, but the averages alone are sufficient to judge the system’s capability.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Intel Arc B390 ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all systems in the database. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s limited performance. The CPU’s strong benchmark scores, including a Passmark multithread score of 39002 and a Passmark single-thread score of 3469, do not boost the combo because the graphics processor cannot utilize that headroom effectively.

The rank of 3302 out of 3714 means that the vast majority of tested systems outperform this configuration. The GPU’s 9th percentile ranking is the primary driver of this poor showing, while the CPU’s 87th percentile ranking is effectively wasted. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, where both CPU and GPU load are high, the system’s overall performance is dictated by the weaker component, and the Arc B390 is far weaker than the Ryzen 9 5900X is strong.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the verdict that no settings achieve 60 FPS, there is no best settings recommendation that meets the playable threshold at any resolution. The database records no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The closest approximation to a playable experience is 1920x1080 Low, which averages 56 FPS, but this still falls below the 60 FPS target. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, and at 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 33 FPS. Users who are willing to accept frame rates below the threshold would need to use Low settings at every resolution to get the highest possible performance, but the data shows that even the lowest settings cannot deliver a smooth experience. The system is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator under the database’s playability criteria, and the recorded frame rates confirm that the Arc B390 is the limiting factor.