Microsoft Flight Simulator

Similar Performance Alternatives

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X sits in a tightly contested performance band. Its average benchmark score of 53,288 places it within 0.6% of several workstation and desktop processors. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53,206, a delta of only 0.2%, meaning the two are effectively interchangeable in CPU-bound scenarios. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 trails by 0.3% with a score of 53,469, while the Intel Xeon 634 leads by 0.6% at 52,974. The Intel Core i7-14700F is the closest consumer rival, scoring 53,620, which is 0.6% higher. For this game, any of these CPUs would deliver nearly identical frame pacing and simulation update rates, so the choice between them comes down to platform features rather than raw performance.

The Intel Arc B370 is a different story. Its lone benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, produced a score of 1,184. That puts it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all legacy parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1,186, a 0.2% difference. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1,190, 0.5% ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1,192, 0.7% ahead. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1,168, which is 1.4% behind. In practical terms, the Arc B370 behaves like a graphics solution from more than a decade ago. Gamers expecting modern discrete GPU performance should look elsewhere, as the data shows this part is firmly in integrated-class territory.

Best Settings per Resolution

The recorded measurements show that no resolution and settings combination reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold. The best outcome at 3840x2160 is Low settings with an average of 30 FPS. At Medium settings, the average drops to 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. None of these qualify as playable per the 60 FPS threshold.

At 2560x1440, the best result is Low settings at 41 FPS average. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. Again, no setting reaches 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the situation improves slightly but remains below the threshold. Low settings average 50 FPS, the highest recorded for this combination. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The database shows no playable settings at any resolution for this configuration.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a system that is severely GPU-limited across all resolutions. The CPU is a high-end 12-core, 24-thread part with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29,300 and a single-core score of 2,016.5. It ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The GPU, by contrast, sits in the 5th percentile. This imbalance means the Arc B370 is the bottleneck in every scenario.

Looking at resolution scaling, the pattern is clear. At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 50. Dropping to 2560x1440 Low reduces that to 41 FPS, a loss of 9 FPS. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 30 FPS. The frame rate declines as pixel count increases, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound workload. If the CPU were the limiting factor, resolution changes would have a much smaller impact on frame rates.

The settings scaling reinforces this. At 1920x1080, going from Low to Ultra costs 22 FPS (50 down to 28). At 2560x1440, the same settings change costs 18 FPS (41 down to 23). At 3840x2160, Low to Ultra costs 13 FPS (30 down to 17). The fact that higher resolutions compress the settings gap indicates the GPU is saturated even at Low settings. The CPU has ample headroom; the recorded scores show strong multi-threaded and single-threaded performance, but the GPU cannot feed frames fast enough to use it.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184 confirms this. The Arc B370's nearest rival, the ATI Radeon HD 5770, is a card from an era before modern flight simulators. Microsoft Flight Simulator, released in 2020, demands far more graphics throughput than this GPU can provide. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking is irrelevant when the GPU is in the 5th percentile; the system's overall rank of 3,428 out of 3,714 combinations reflects the GPU's dominance as the limiting factor.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable frame rate. The verdictByResolution data lists no playable settings at any resolution, meaning no combination of resolution and quality preset achieves the 60 FPS threshold. At 1920x1080, the best recorded average is 50 FPS on Low settings, which is 10 FPS short. At 2560x1440, the best is 41 FPS on Low. At 3840x2160, the best is 30 FPS on Low. Even the least demanding configuration falls short of the playable threshold.

For context, the system ranks 3,428 out of 3,714 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of configurations. The CPU is not the problem; the Ryzen 9 7900X is a top-tier processor. The Intel Arc B370, with its 5th percentile GPU ranking, is the clear culprit. Users considering this configuration for flight simulation should expect sub-60 FPS performance across the board, with playable frame rates only achievable by reducing resolution below 1080p or accepting major visual compromises.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured frame rates is as follows. At 3840x2160, Low settings average 30 FPS. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings average 18 FPS. Ultra settings average 17 FPS. The minimum and maximum values for Low, High, and Ultra were not recorded.

At 2560x1440, Low settings average 41 FPS. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High settings average 24 FPS. Ultra settings average 23 FPS. Minimum and maximum values for Low, High, and Ultra were not recorded.

At 1920x1080, Low settings average 50 FPS. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings average 30 FPS. Ultra settings average 28 FPS. Minimum and maximum values for Low, High, and Ultra were not recorded.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset is the only one with complete min/max data. The variation between minimum and maximum at Medium settings is consistent: 7 FPS at 3840x2160, 9 FPS at 2560x1440, and 12 FPS at 1920x1080. This suggests frame pacing is relatively stable, but the overall performance is too low to be usable.

FAQ

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

A: No. The recorded data shows no playable settings at any resolution. The best result is 50 FPS average at 1920x1080 Low, which is below the 60 FPS threshold.

Q: Which component is the bottleneck?

A: The GPU. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs with a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X ranks in the 91st percentile of CPUs. Resolution and settings scaling both indicate GPU saturation.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,184 is within 0.2% of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1,186), 0.5% of the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1,190), 0.7% of the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1,192), and 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1,168).

Q: What is the best frame rate this PC can achieve?

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 Low, the average drops to 41 FPS, and at 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 30 FPS.

Q: Does lowering resolution help enough to reach 60 FPS?

A: No. Even at 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the best average is 50 FPS on Low settings. All other settings at this resolution produce lower averages: 39 FPS on Medium, 30 FPS on High, and 28 FPS on Ultra.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 7900X scores 53,288 on average. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53,206, the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 scores 53,469, the Intel Xeon 634 scores 52,974, and the Intel Core i7-14700F scores 53,620. All are within 0.6% of each other.