Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X sits in a tightly contested segment of the processor landscape. Its average benchmark score of 51947 places it within a narrow band of comparable silicon. The database shows the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scoring 52073, a mere 0.2% difference, meaning the two chips would deliver nearly indistinguishable results in most workloads. The AMD EPYC 8124P trails by 0.3% with a score of 52121, while the Intel Core i9-13900F comes in 0.4% ahead of the 5950X at 51730. The Intel Core i7-14700 posts the highest score among these rivals at 52301, which is 0.7% above the Ryzen. In practical terms, a user moving between any of these four processors would not experience a perceptible shift in frame rates or application responsiveness.

The GPU side presents a starkly different picture. The Intel Arc B390, with an average benchmark score of 1482, is grouped with much older, far less capable graphics hardware. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX scores 1463, which is 1.3% lower than the Arc B390. The GeForce 800M is 1.5% behind at 1460, while the GeForce GT 625 OEM trails by 2.5% with a score of 1446. The closest rival, the GeForce GT 710, sits 2.7% below the Arc B390 at 1443. These are all entry-level or legacy parts, which tells a clear story: the Arc B390 is not competing with modern gaming GPUs. Its performance class is fundamentally constrained, and this is reflected in its 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database. For users considering this combo, the CPU is surrounded by strong contemporary alternatives, but the GPU's nearest neighbors are decades old.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 9 5950X and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11% of all configurations tested, a sobering position for a system built around a top-tier 16-core processor. The data indicates that the GPU is the dominant bottleneck; the CPU's high percentile ranking (91st among all CPUs) does nothing to rescue the combo from its low overall position. In practical terms, this pairing behaves like a machine that has a very strong engine but is fitted with severely undersized wheels. The frame rates recorded in the measured FPS data confirm this: no configuration at any resolution reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The verdict fields for all three resolutions show zero playable settings, meaning the system fails to clear 60 FPS even at 1080p with the lowest preset.

The rank of 3302 out of 3714 suggests that the overwhelming majority of tested hardware combinations outperform this one. This is not a subtle difference; it is a clear gap. The CPU alone would place in the top 10% of processors, but the GPU drags the entire system down to the bottom decile. For flight simulation enthusiasts, this combination is not a viable path to smooth gameplay. The measured data does not include any configuration that would qualify as playable under the 60 FPS threshold, so the combo's ranking is consistent with its on-paper performance: the GPU's capabilities are simply too limited.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator show a consistent pattern across all resolutions and presets. At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the system averages 19 FPS on High settings. Lowering to Medium yields an average of 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. The Low preset improves to an average of 33 FPS, while Ultra drops back to 19 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS threshold, and even the best case (Low at 33 FPS) is barely half of what would be considered playable.

At 2560x1440, the results improve modestly but remain far from acceptable. High settings produce an average of 26 FPS, Medium reaches 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40, Low climbs to 45 FPS, and Ultra falls to 25 FPS. The jump from 4K to 1440p yields roughly a 10 FPS improvement at the Low preset, but the overall picture is unchanged: the system is stuck in the 25 to 45 FPS band regardless of settings.

The 1920x1080 results are the best the combo can offer, yet they still miss the mark. High settings average 33 FPS, Medium averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50, Ultra averages 31 FPS, and Low reaches 56 FPS. The 1080p Low result is the closest the system comes to 60 FPS, but it still falls 4 FPS short of the threshold. The data shows a clear ceiling: even at the lowest resolution with the least demanding preset, this hardware cannot sustain a smooth frame rate in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for any resolution, and the best average FPS recorded across all tests is 56 FPS at 1080p with Low settings. That is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS threshold, and it is the absolute peak of what this combo can achieve. At 1440p, the best result is 45 FPS on Low, and at 4K, the best is 33 FPS on Low. The system fails to clear 60 FPS in every single configuration tested.

For users hoping to play this title, the conclusion is straightforward: this hardware combination is not suitable. The CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU's performance class (9th percentile) makes 60 FPS unattainable. Even the most aggressive settings reduction only brings the system to the edge of playability, and that is at 1080p, which is the least demanding resolution. At higher resolutions, the gap widens significantly. The verdict is a clear negative across the board, with no settings combination offering a path to the playable threshold.

CPU and GPU Roles

The scaling between resolutions and presets reveals that the GPU is the limiting factor in this combination. At 4K, the difference between Low (33 FPS) and Ultra (19 FPS) is 14 FPS, a 74% drop. At 1440p, the same comparison shows 45 FPS versus 25 FPS, a 20 FPS gap. At 1080p, Low delivers 56 FPS while Ultra drops to 31 FPS, a 25 FPS difference. These scaling patterns are consistent with a GPU that is overwhelmed by the game's rendering demands. The CPU, with its 16 cores and 32 threads, has far more compute headroom than the GPU can utilize.

The resolution scaling further confirms this: moving from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings reduces average FPS from 56 to 45, a 20% drop. Moving from 1440p to 4K at Low reduces FPS from 45 to 33, a 27% drop. These are large penalties for resolution increases, indicating that the GPU is already near its limit even at the lowest presets. The CPU's role is secondary; it does not throttle performance at any resolution, but it also cannot compensate for the GPU's shortcomings. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU is the binding constraint across all tested configurations, and the CPU's high benchmark scores do not translate into playable frame rates because the graphics hardware cannot keep up.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: No. The best recorded result at 1920x1080 is 56 FPS on Low settings, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold. No settings combination at this resolution clears 60 FPS.

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combo achieves?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 56, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This falls short of the 60 FPS threshold.

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

A: The Ryzen 9 5950X scores 51947 on average, which is 0.2% below the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX, 0.3% below the AMD EPYC 8124P, 0.4% above the Intel Core i9-13900F, and 0.7% below the Intel Core i7-14700.

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

A: The Intel Arc B390 scores 1482 on average, which is 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% above the GeForce 800M, 2.5% above the GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% above the GeForce GT 710.

Q: What is the best frame rate at 1440p?

A: The best result at 2560x1440 is 45 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The combo ranks in the 9th percentile for GPUs but the 91st percentile for CPUs, and the frame rate drops significantly with resolution increases, indicating the graphics hardware cannot keep up with the game's demands.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 3840x2160, no settings preset reaches 60 FPS. The best average is 33 FPS on Low, which is far below the playable threshold. The database records no playable settings for this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the situation is identical: no preset clears 60 FPS. The highest average is 45 FPS on Low, which still falls 15 FPS short of the threshold. No playable settings exist at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, the best result is 56 FPS on Low, which is 4 FPS below the 60 FPS target. Medium averages 43 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The database lists no playable settings for this resolution either, meaning the system cannot achieve a smooth experience even at the lowest settings and resolution.