Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Intel Arc B580 combination presents a specific performance profile in Microsoft Flight Simulator, with results that vary significantly across resolutions and presets. Measured data shows this pairing delivers playable frame rates at 1080p and 1440p with Medium settings, while 4K remains below the 60 FPS threshold across all tested presets. The following analysis examines how this combo compares to nearby hardware, which component limits performance, and the exact frame rates achieved.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41,376. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 41,263 (0.3% lower), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41,215 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 scores 41,208 (0.4% lower). The Intel Core i7-14650HX is the only rival that scores higher, at 41,576, representing a 0.5% advantage. In practical terms, any of these processors would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game, given the same GPU.

The Intel Arc B580 occupies the 68th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 23,021. Its nearest rivals show a wider spread: the AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP scores 23,061 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 scores 23,172 (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA P106-100 scores 23,249 (1.0% higher). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 scores 22,895, which is 0.6% lower. This means the Arc B580 performs essentially on par with an RTX 2080 in aggregate benchmarks, while the RTX 3080 holds only a marginal edge. For Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, users coming from any of these GPUs would see comparable performance, with differences of roughly 1% or less in synthetic tests.

When considering the full combo, the Ryzen 9 5900X brings substantial multi-threaded capability with its 12 cores and 24 threads, scoring 16,262 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 14,118 in Geekbench multi-core. The Arc B580’s 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for the texture-heavy environments in this flight simulator. The combination of a high-end 2020 CPU with a 2024 mid-range GPU creates a system where the GPU is the primary determinant of frame rates at higher resolutions.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data indicates that the GPU becomes the dominant bottleneck as resolution increases. At 1920x1080, the frame rate drops from 95.9 FPS at Low to 53.7 FPS at Ultra, a reduction of 44%. At 2560x1440, the same preset sweep goes from 74.6 FPS to 44.8 FPS, a 40% reduction. At 3840x2160, the range narrows to 54.4 FPS at Low and 33.7 FPS at Ultra, a 38% drop. This pattern shows that pixel throughput and GPU shading load increasingly limit performance at higher resolutions.

The CPU’s role is most evident at 1080p Low, where the Ryzen 9 5900X can feed the Arc B580 enough data to reach 95.9 FPS. At 1440p Low, the frame rate drops to 74.6 FPS, and at 4K Low it falls further to 54.4 FPS. These reductions from 1080p to 4K at the same preset (43% lower) show that the GPU is the limiting factor even at Low settings. The CPU’s 3DMark 16-thread score of 9,075 and max thread score of 10,075 indicate ample headroom for the simulation's physics and AI workloads, which do not scale with resolution.

Preset scaling provides additional insight. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 21.5 FPS (22%), while Medium to High costs 18.7 FPS (25%), and High to Ultra costs only 2.0 FPS (3.6%). This non-linear scaling suggests that the Ultra preset at 1080p is not substantially more demanding than High, while the jump from Low to Medium represents a significant increase in GPU workload. At 4K, the scaling is more consistent: Low to Medium costs 12.0 FPS (22%), Medium to High costs 11.7 FPS (28%), and High to Ultra costs 3.0 FPS (8.8%). The smaller absolute differences at 4K confirm that resolution, not preset complexity, is the primary constraint.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combination achieves an average of 95.9 FPS at Low settings, which is the highest frame rate recorded across all tests. Medium settings produce 74.4 FPS, High settings deliver 55.7 FPS, and Ultra settings yield 53.7 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal at just 2.0 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset adds little additional load over High at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, Low settings deliver 74.6 FPS, which remains above the 60 FPS threshold. Medium settings achieve 61.6 FPS, just clearing the playable mark. High settings drop to 43.6 FPS, and Ultra settings fall to 44.8 FPS. Interestingly, the Ultra preset scores slightly higher than High at 1440p, which is a measurement anomaly but still places both in the 43-45 FPS range.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. Low settings produce 54.4 FPS, Medium delivers 42.4 FPS, High achieves 30.7 FPS, and Ultra bottoms out at 33.7 FPS. The 4K results show a steep drop from Low to High, with a 23.7 FPS difference between the two settings. The Ultra preset at 4K actually performs slightly better than High, mirroring the 1440p result, but both remain far below playable thresholds.

The overall pattern shows that 1080p Medium is the best balance, with 74.4 FPS representing a 20% improvement over High and a 21.5 FPS reduction from Low. At 1440p, Medium at 61.6 FPS is the only preset that clears 60 FPS besides Low. The 4K results are consistently below 55 FPS, making this resolution unsuitable for smooth gameplay with this hardware.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 resolutions, but only with Low or Medium settings. At 1080p, Medium achieves 74.4 FPS. At 1440p, Medium achieves 61.6 FPS. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS, with the best result being 54.4 FPS at Low.

Q: What is the best preset for 1080p gameplay?

A: Medium settings provide the highest visual quality while maintaining playable performance, delivering 74.4 FPS. High settings drop to 55.7 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold, and Ultra settings yield 53.7 FPS.

Q: How does the Arc B580 compare to the RTX 2080 in this system?

A: The Arc B580 has an average benchmark score of 23,021, while the RTX 2080 scores 22,895, making the Arc B580 0.6% faster. This means performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator would be nearly identical between the two GPUs.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 5900X a bottleneck at 4K?

A: No, the data shows the GPU is the limiting factor at 4K. The frame rate drops from 54.4 FPS at Low to 33.7 FPS at Ultra, which follows GPU workload scaling. The CPU has sufficient multi-threaded performance with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16,262.

Q: What frame rate can be expected at 1440p Ultra?

A: The measured average is 44.8 FPS, which is below the 60 FPS threshold. This is a 37% reduction from Medium settings at the same resolution, which achieves 61.6 FPS.

Q: How does this combo rank among all tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 2,847 out of 3,714 tested combos, placing it in the lower quarter of all systems benchmarked for this game.

The Verdict

This PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS, but only at 1080p and 1440p resolutions with reduced settings. At 1920x1080, Medium settings deliver 74.4 FPS, which comfortably clears the playable threshold. At 2560x1440, Medium settings achieve 61.6 FPS, just above the 60 FPS mark. At 3840x2160, the system cannot reach 60 FPS at any preset, with the best result being 54.4 FPS at Low settings.

The verdict by resolution confirms this: 1080p has playable settings of Low and Medium, with Medium as the best option at 74.4 FPS. 1440p also has playable settings of Low and Medium, with Medium at 61.6 FPS. 4K has no playable settings, meaning all presets fall below 60 FPS.

For users targeting smooth gameplay, 1080p Medium or 1440p Medium are the only viable options. The system’s rank of 2,847 out of 3,714 combos indicates that it falls in the lower third of tested configurations, which is consistent with the Arc B580’s 68th percentile GPU ranking. The Ryzen 9 5900X provides ample CPU headroom, but the GPU limits performance at higher resolutions.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 74.4 FPS. This provides a 14.4 FPS margin above the threshold, allowing for minor performance dips without dropping below playable levels. High settings at 55.7 FPS and Ultra at 53.7 FPS are both below 60 FPS.

At 2560x1440, Medium is the most demanding playable preset, achieving 61.6 FPS. This is a narrow 1.6 FPS margin, meaning any additional background load or complex scene could push it below 60 FPS. Low settings at 74.6 FPS offer more headroom, but Medium provides better visual quality while still clearing the threshold.

At 3840x2160, no preset achieves 60 FPS, so there is no best playable setting. The highest frame rate is 54.4 FPS at Low, which is 5.6 FPS below the threshold. Medium at 42.4 FPS, High at 30.7 FPS, and Ultra at 33.7 FPS are all significantly below playable levels.

How This Combo Ranks

This AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Intel Arc B580 combination ranks 2,847 out of 3,714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 23rd percentile of all systems tested. This ranking aligns with the GPU’s 68th percentile position among all GPUs, suggesting that the GPU is the primary determinant of this system’s position.

The CPU’s 87th percentile ranking indicates it is a strong performer, but the Arc B580’s more modest GPU ranking drags the overall combo down. In practical terms, this means the system outperforms roughly 77% of tested configurations but falls behind the top quarter. The measured frame rates support this: 1080p Medium at 74.4 FPS and 1440p Medium at 61.6 FPS are respectable but not exceptional, while 4K performance is firmly below playable levels.

Compared to the nearest rival GPUs, the Arc B580’s performance is essentially matched by the RTX 2080 and RTX 3080, with differences under 1%. This suggests that swapping the GPU for either NVIDIA card would produce nearly identical results in this game. The CPU’s rivals, including the Core Ultra 7 366H and Core i7-14650HX, also show differences under 0.5%, meaning the overall system performance is representative of a broad range of mid-to-high-end 2020-2024 hardware.