Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and Intel Arc B570 combination lands at rank 2988 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower third of the database. That ranking reflects a pairing where the CPU is a top-tier performer while the GPU is a mid-range entry, and the game's demands expose that imbalance. For a flight sim that relies heavily on both CPU simulation logic and GPU rendering, this combo is workable at lower settings but struggles to deliver smooth gameplay at higher presets or 4K.

How This Combo Ranks

At position 2988 out of 3714 combos, this system sits in the 20th percentile of tested configurations for this specific game. The ranking is not a measure of component quality in isolation—the Ryzen 9 7900X is a strong CPU with a 91st percentile ranking among all processors—but rather how the two parts work together under Microsoft Flight Simulator's unique load. The Arc B570's 65th percentile standing among GPUs is the limiting factor here.

The data suggests that this combo performs closer to the bottom tier of tested systems because the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions and settings. In practical terms, this rank means you should expect frame rates that are playable only with reduced graphical fidelity. The gap between this combo and top-tier systems is substantial, but it is not a broken pairing—it simply requires adjusting expectations for what settings are achievable.

CPU and GPU Roles

The Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread Zen 4 processor with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz and a substantial 64 MB of shared L3 cache. It scores 29,300 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 19,267 in Geekbench multi-core, putting it far above what Microsoft Flight Simulator needs for CPU-bound simulation tasks. The Arc B570, by contrast, has 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 380.0 GB/s bandwidth, and it delivers 11.52 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

In this game, the CPU handles flight dynamics, weather, and AI traffic, while the GPU renders the world. At 1920x1080, the CPU is never the limiting factor—the GPU is. Moving from Low to Medium at 1080p drops average FPS from 86 to 67, a 22% reduction, while going to High drops it to 50 and Ultra to 48. The scaling is consistent with GPU-bound behavior: the CPU has ample headroom, and the GPU's rendering load dictates the frame rate.

At 2560x1440, the pattern continues but the GPU strain increases. Low settings average 69 FPS, Medium drops to 54, High to 41, and Ultra to 39. The step from Low to Medium is a 22% drop, similar to 1080p, but the absolute numbers are lower because there are more pixels to fill. At 3840x2160, the GPU is clearly overwhelmed. Low averages 51 FPS, Medium drops to 40, High to 30, and Ultra to 28. The CPU's role here is minimal—it is doing its job without bottlenecking, but the GPU cannot keep up at 4K.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The Ryzen 9 7900X's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7313P (0.2% higher average score), the Intel Xeon Phi 7290 (0.3% lower), the Intel Xeon 634 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Core i7-14700F (0.6% lower). None of these would change the gaming outcome meaningfully—they are all within a fraction of a percent in synthetic benchmarks, so swapping the CPU for any of them would produce nearly identical frame rates in this game.

The Arc B570's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% higher), the Intel Arc A750 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (0.5% lower). The Arc A750 is the most relevant comparison since it is a desktop GPU from the same Intel family, and the data shows they perform nearly identically. If you already own an Arc A750, you would see no practical difference by switching to the B570.

For the overall combo, the practical implication is that this system behaves like any mid-range GPU paired with a high-end CPU. The exact choice of CPU among the top performers matters little—the GPU is what determines your frame rates in this title.

The Verdict

The data shows that this PC can run Microsoft Flight Simulator, but only under specific conditions. At 1920x1080, the combo clears 60 FPS on Low (86 FPS average) and Medium (67 FPS average) settings, making 1080p Medium the most demanding playable preset. At 2560x1440, only Low settings achieve 60 FPS, with an average of 69 FPS. At 3840x2160, no settings reach 60 FPS—the best result is 51 FPS on Low, which is below the playable threshold.

For a smooth experience, you should target 1080p with Medium settings or 1440p with Low settings. Pushing beyond that requires accepting frame rates in the 40s or lower, which is not ideal for a flight simulator where smooth camera panning matters. If you own a 4K monitor, this combo will not deliver a playable experience at any setting, and you would need to either reduce resolution or upgrade the GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured results show a clear progression: Low averages 51 FPS, Medium averages 40 FPS with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The minimum and maximum for Medium indicate noticeable frame pacing variation, which can be distracting during flight. The step from Low to Medium is a 22% drop, and from Medium to High is another 25% drop, showing how quickly the GPU becomes saturated at 4K.

At 2560x1440, Low averages 69 FPS, Medium averages 54 FPS with a minimum of 46 and maximum of 62, High averages 41 FPS, and Ultra averages 39 FPS. The Medium preset shows a range of 16 FPS between minimum and maximum, which is acceptable but not perfectly stable. The difference between High and Ultra is small (41 to 39 FPS), suggesting the Ultra preset adds little visual benefit relative to its performance cost at this resolution.

At 1920x1080, Low averages 86 FPS, Medium averages 67 FPS with a minimum of 57 and maximum of 77, High averages 50 FPS, and Ultra averages 48 FPS. The Medium preset is the sweet spot here, with a minimum that stays close to 60 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra is minimal (50 to 48 FPS), so there is no reason to choose Ultra over High if you are trying to maximize performance.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Medium, with an average of 67 FPS. This is the recommended setting for a 60 Hz monitor. The minimum of 57 FPS means brief dips below 60 will occur, but they are rare and minor. Low settings give you headroom at 86 FPS if you prefer higher frame rates or have a 144 Hz display.

At 2560x1440, the only preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Low, with an average of 69 FPS. This is your choice if you want smooth performance at 1440p. Medium drops to 54 FPS, which is below the threshold, so it is not recommended for a 60 FPS target. If you are willing to accept occasional dips into the 40s, Medium is visually better, but the data does not support calling it playable by the 60 FPS standard.

At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 60 FPS. The best result is Low at 51 FPS, which is below the playable threshold. If you must use 4K, you will need to accept a lower frame rate or use a lower resolution for this combo. The data is clear: this system is not suitable for 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator.