Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination of AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Arc B370 in Microsoft Flight Simulator shows a consistent pattern: the integrated-class GPU becomes the limiting factor across all resolutions, with no preset reaching the 60 FPS playable threshold. The measurements span three resolutions and four quality settings, providing a clear picture of performance scaling.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly below playable levels. The Low preset delivers an average of 30 FPS, which is the highest recorded at this resolution. Medium drops to 23 FPS on average, with minimums of 20 FPS and maximums of 27 FPS. High falls further to 18 FPS, while Ultra bottoms out at 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, indicating that the GPU struggles with the pixel count at 4K regardless of visual complexity.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance improves but remains far from the 60 FPS target. Low reaches 41 FPS average, Medium achieves 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 36 FPS, High sits at 24 FPS, and Ultra manages 23 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra here is 18 FPS, showing that resolution scaling has a pronounced effect on the GPU's ability to maintain frame rates. Notably, the difference between High and Ultra at 1440p is only 1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the top end of the settings stack.

At 1920x1080, the best results emerge, though they still fall short of playable. Low produces 50 FPS average, Medium reaches 39 FPS with minimums of 33 and maximums of 45, High delivers 30 FPS, and Ultra trails at 28 FPS. The 22 FPS spread between Low and Ultra at 1080p is the widest across all resolutions, indicating that the GPU has more headroom to respond to settings changes when pixel count is lower. Even at the lowest settings, the combination misses the 60 FPS mark by 10 FPS, which is significant for a flight simulator where smooth panning is essential.

The data reveals a clear trend: as resolution decreases, the average FPS increases roughly proportionally. From 4K Low (30 FPS) to 1440p Low (41 FPS) to 1080p Low (50 FPS), each step down in resolution yields approximately 10 FPS improvement. This linear scaling suggests the Intel Arc B370 is bandwidth and pixel-throughput limited, rather than being constrained by the CPU.

FAQ

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

A: No. The recorded data shows no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS. The closest result is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings, which still falls 10 FPS short of the playable threshold.

Q: What is the best average FPS this combination achieves in the game?

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. This is the only measurement within 20% of the 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184, sitting at the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186 (0.2% higher), while ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% higher). AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% higher), and AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% lower).

Q: Does the CPU performance vary significantly between single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X shows strong scaling. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 26017 versus 1614 for single-core, a ratio of roughly 16:1. In Geekbench, multi-core scores 15233 versus 2083 single-core. The 3DMark results show a similar pattern, with max threads at 11597 versus single thread at 944.

Q: What is the frame time consistency like at Medium settings?

A: The data shows min and max FPS only for Medium settings. At 1080p Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS around a 39 FPS average, indicating moderate variance. At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 36 FPS around a 32 FPS average. At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS around a 23 FPS average. The spread is roughly 12 FPS in each case.

Q: Is there any resolution where the game is considered playable per the database?

A: No. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. Every preset at every resolution falls below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no preset stays at or above 60 FPS. The best achievable average is 30 FPS with Low settings, which is exactly half the playable threshold. Medium yields 23 FPS, High yields 18 FPS, and Ultra yields 17 FPS. For users forced into 4K, Low is the only viable choice, though it remains far from smooth.

At 2560x1440, the situation is similar. Low produces 41 FPS, which is the highest average at this resolution. Medium reaches 32 FPS, High achieves 24 FPS, and Ultra manages 23 FPS. None approach 60 FPS, but Low at 1440p is the closest to a playable experience outside of 1080p.

At 1920x1080, Low settings deliver 50 FPS, the best result in the entire dataset. Medium follows at 39 FPS, High at 30 FPS, and Ultra at 28 FPS. While Low at 1080p is still 10 FPS short of the playable threshold, it represents the only configuration where the game approaches reasonable fluidity. The database indicates that users should expect to lower settings to minimum and accept reduced visual fidelity to get the highest frame rates.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X sits in a tight cluster of rivals based on average benchmark scores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 52073, which is 0.2% lower than the Ryzen's 51947 average. The AMD EPYC 8124P scores 52121, 0.3% lower. The Intel Core i9-13900F scores 51730, 0.4% higher, and the Intel Core i7-14700 scores 52301, 0.7% lower. These four processors are within 1% of the Ryzen 9 5950X, meaning any of them would deliver nearly identical performance in CPU-bound scenarios. For Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on single-thread performance for simulation logic, the 3DMark single-thread score of 944 and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1614 suggest these rivals would produce similar frame pacing.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370 is in a much lower performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% higher score), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% higher), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% higher), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% lower). These are all legacy or low-power parts, and the data indicates that swapping the B370 for any of them would yield nearly identical FPS in this game. The 5th percentile ranking for the GPU means it sits below 95% of all tested graphics cards, which aligns with the sub-60 FPS results across all settings.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold in any configuration tested. The verdict by resolution lists zero playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080. The closest result is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which misses the mark by 10 FPS. At 1440p, the best is 41 FPS, and at 4K, the best is 30 FPS.

The pattern suggests that even dropping to lower resolutions below 1080p would not guarantee 60 FPS, given the linear scaling observed. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking and its similarity to decade-old parts like the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% score difference) indicate that the Intel Arc B370 is fundamentally unsuited for this game's demands. The CPU, on the other hand, is a high-end part with a 91st percentile ranking among all processors, so the bottleneck is clearly the graphics solution. Users seeking playable performance would need to consider a different GPU entirely, as no settings adjustment can bridge the gap.

How This Combo Ranks

Among all tested combinations in the database, this pairing of Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 7.7% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the sub-60 FPS results across every resolution and preset. The ranking reflects the severe imbalance between the high-end CPU (91st percentile) and the entry-level GPU (5th percentile). While the CPU would rank near the top of any chart, the GPU drags the combined score down dramatically. The 286 combos ranked lower likely use even weaker GPUs or older CPUs, but the practical takeaway is that this system is near the bottom of the performance distribution for this specific title.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a clear division of labor. At 4K, the GPU is overwhelmingly the limiting factor. Going from Low to Ultra at 3840x2160 drops average FPS from 30 to 17, a 43% reduction, while even the lowest setting struggles to reach half the playable threshold. The CPU's 16 cores and 32 threads, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26017, are more than sufficient for the simulation workload, but the Intel Arc B370's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance cannot push enough pixels.

At 1440p, the GPU still dominates. The spread from Low (41 FPS) to Ultra (23 FPS) is 18 FPS, and the absolute numbers remain low. The CPU's single-thread performance, measured at 1614 in Cinebench R23, is likely adequate for the flight model and scenery streaming, but the GPU's 40 TMUs and 20 ROPs limit texture throughput and pixel fill rate.

At 1080p, the balance shifts slightly. The 22 FPS difference between Low (50 FPS) and Ultra (28 FPS) shows the GPU responding to settings, but the ceiling of 50 FPS suggests that even at minimal load, the GPU cannot reach 60 FPS. The CPU's 3DMark single-thread score of 944 and 2-thread score of 1856 indicate it is not the bottleneck at any resolution. The scaling from 4K Low (30 FPS) to 1080p Low (50 FPS) is a 67% improvement, which aligns with the pixel count reduction from 8.3 million to 2.1 million pixels. This proportional relationship confirms that the Intel Arc B370 is a fixed ceiling, and no CPU adjustment would change the outcome. The Ryzen 9 5950X, with its 91st percentile rank, is effectively wasted in this pairing for this game, as the GPU cannot leverage its capabilities.