Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for this combination shows a consistent pattern across all resolutions: Microsoft Flight Simulator runs well below the 60 FPS playable threshold in every tested configuration. At 3840x2160, the average frame rates range from 17 FPS at Ultra settings to 30 FPS at Low settings. The Medium preset at 4K delivers an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings at 3840x2160 produce an average of 18 FPS, while Ultra drops further to 17 FPS. None of these figures approach the 60 FPS target, and even the Low preset at 4K only reaches half of that threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the results improve but remain firmly in unplayable territory. Low settings yield an average of 41 FPS, which is the highest recorded value at this resolution. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium at 1440p is 9 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the upper end of the preset scale.

At 1920x1080, the data shows the best results for this hardware pairing, yet still no configuration reaches the 60 FPS threshold. Low settings average 50 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across all resolutions and settings. Medium settings average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The delta between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11 FPS, while the delta between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS. The minimum frame rates recorded only for Medium presets across all resolutions indicate that frame pacing is relatively stable at that setting, with the 1080p Medium minimum of 33 FPS representing the highest minimum value in the entire dataset.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark results indicate that the Intel Arc B370 integrated graphics component is the dominant bottleneck in this pairing. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with a score of 1186 and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 with a score of 1190, both of which are older discrete parts. This places the GPU in a performance tier that is fundamentally mismatched with the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator, a game that requires substantial graphics throughput even at lower settings.

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X, by contrast, ranks in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 57498. Its multi-threaded performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32172 and a single-core score of 2253. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-14900 with an average score of 58115 and the AMD EPYC 7313 with a score of 57399, show that the 9900X is competitive with high-end desktop and server parts. For a flight simulator that relies heavily on single-thread performance for physics and AI calculations, the Ryzen 9 9900X provides ample headroom.

The scaling between resolutions confirms this analysis. When moving from 3840x2160 Low to 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS increases from 30 to 50, a 67% improvement that directly correlates with the reduced pixel count. Similarly, at Medium settings, the jump from 4K (23 FPS) to 1440p (32 FPS) to 1080p (39 FPS) shows a consistent 39% to 22% scaling pattern. This behavior is typical of GPU-bound scenarios, where lowering resolution reduces the load on the graphics processor while the CPU workload remains relatively constant. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain largely unchanged across resolutions.

The data also shows that the GPU's performance ceiling is reached early. At 1080p Ultra, the average FPS is 28, only 2 FPS lower than High settings. At 1440p, the difference between High and Ultra is 1 FPS. This suggests that the GPU cannot leverage additional graphical detail beyond a certain point, regardless of the CPU's capacity. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is not the constraint here; the Arc B370's 1280 shading units and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are insufficient for this title's demands at any resolution tested.

Similar Performance Alternatives

For the CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X sits within a tight performance cluster. The AMD EPYC 9015 has an average score of 57555, which is 0.1% lower than the 9900X, making it nearly identical in overall CPU benchmarks. The AMD EPYC 7313 scores 57399, 0.2% higher than the 9900X, again a negligible difference. The Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58115, 1.1% higher, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M scores 58323, 1.4% higher. These deltas are all within 1.5%, meaning that any of these CPUs would produce essentially the same frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator when paired with the same GPU. The choice among these processors would not alter the playability outcome at any resolution.

For the GPU, the Intel Arc B370's nearest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher than the Arc B370. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190, 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168, 1.4% lower. All of these GPUs fall within a 2% performance band, meaning that swapping the Arc B370 for any of these alternatives would yield nearly identical FPS results in this game. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 for the Arc B370 reflects its position in this cluster, and none of these parts are capable of delivering 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator at any of the tested resolutions and settings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combinations in the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all recorded configurations, a position that reflects the GPU's severe performance limitation rather than any deficiency in the CPU. The Ryzen 9 9900X is a high-end processor, but the Arc B370's 5th percentile GPU ranking drags the overall combo down to a level where no playable settings exist.

The verdict data confirms this ranking: at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080, there are no playable settings (defined as maintaining at least 60 FPS average). The best settings field is null for all resolutions, and the average FPS at the best settings is also null. This means that the database records no configuration where this combo reaches the playable threshold. The highest average FPS recorded across all tests is 50 at 1080p Low, which is 10 FPS short of the threshold. Even at the lowest settings and resolution, this hardware cannot deliver a smooth experience.

The rank of 3428 out of 3714 also indicates that the vast majority of tested combinations outperform this pairing. Given that the CPU scores in the 92nd percentile, the ranking is almost entirely attributable to the GPU. Users considering this combo for Microsoft Flight Simulator should expect performance that is comparable to systems with much older or lower-end graphics hardware, as the nearest GPU rivals demonstrate.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combination achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest recorded average FPS is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is still 10 FPS below the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: Are there any settings at 2560x1440 that reach 60 FPS?

A: No. The best result at 2560x1440 is 41 FPS average at Low settings. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its closest GPU rivals in terms of benchmark scores?

A: The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 (0.2% higher), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 (0.7% higher).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor for this game?

A: The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X ranks in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. FPS scales significantly with resolution changes, which is characteristic of GPU-bound performance.

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested configurations for this game?

A: The combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 8% of all recorded systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: Does lowering to 1080p Low provide a playable experience?

A: No. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 50, which falls short of the 60 FPS playable threshold defined in the database.

Best Settings per Resolution

For each resolution, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS must be identified. The recorded data shows that no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS average. At 3840x2160, the highest average is 30 FPS at Low settings, which is far below the threshold. At 2560x1440, the highest average is 41 FPS at Low settings. At 1920x1080, the highest average is 50 FPS at Low settings. Since none of these values meet or exceed 60 FPS, there is no playable settings configuration at any resolution. The verdict data confirms this, listing empty playable settings arrays and null best settings for all three resolutions. Users would need to consider either a more powerful GPU or accept frame rates well below the playable threshold. The best achievable result in this dataset is 1080p Low at 50 FPS average, but this still does not qualify as playable under the database's 60 FPS criterion.