Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Intel Arc B390 shows a consistently challenging performance profile across all tested resolutions and presets. The measurements span three resolutions (3840x2160, 2560x1440, and 1920x1080) and four quality settings (Low, Medium, High, and Ultra), with average frame rates ranging from 19 FPS at the most demanding configuration to 56 FPS at the least demanding.

Starting with 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the combo produces an average of 19 FPS on High settings and the same 19 FPS on Ultra settings. The Medium preset delivers a modest improvement to 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS recorded. The Low preset at 4K yields 33 FPS average, which is the strongest result at this resolution. Notably, the High and Ultra presets at 3840x2160 do not have recorded minimum or maximum values in the database, while the Medium preset includes a full range of 22 to 30 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the performance picture improves but remains far from the 60 FPS threshold. The High preset averages 26 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. Medium settings at 1440p produce 35 FPS on average, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. The Low preset reaches 45 FPS average, which is the best result at this resolution. As with the 4K data, only the Medium preset at 2560x1440 has full min/max values recorded; the other presets lack those details.

The 1920x1080 results show the closest approach to playability. Low settings average 56 FPS, just 4 FPS shy of the 60 FPS playable threshold. Medium settings deliver 43 FPS on average, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. The High preset averages 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS. Across all three resolutions, the pattern is consistent: lower presets yield higher frame rates, but even the best configuration fails to reach the 60 FPS mark.

The scaling between resolutions reveals a significant performance cost for each step up in resolution. Comparing Low settings across all three resolutions, the frame rate drops from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p, a decline of 11 FPS, and then further to 33 FPS at 4K, another 12 FPS drop. Medium settings follow a similar trajectory: 43 FPS at 1080p, 35 FPS at 1440p, and 26 FPS at 4K. High settings go from 33 FPS at 1080p to 26 FPS at 1440p to 19 FPS at 4K. Ultra settings show 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K.

The minimum and maximum values recorded for the Medium preset provide additional insight into frame time stability. At 4K, the 22 to 30 FPS range represents a spread of 8 FPS, which is a relatively narrow band around the 26 FPS average. At 1440p, the range is 30 to 40 FPS, a 10 FPS spread around the 35 FPS average. At 1080p, the range is 37 to 50 FPS, a 13 FPS spread around the 43 FPS average. These data points indicate that the Medium preset maintains reasonably consistent frame pacing, even though the overall performance is below the playable threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The database ranks this CPU and GPU combination at position 3302 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations, a rank that reflects the substantial performance gap between this setup and the majority of systems in the database. The combination of a high-end CPU with a GPU that sits in the 9th percentile among all GPUs creates a particularly imbalanced configuration for this flight simulator.

To contextualize the GPU performance, the Intel Arc B390's average benchmark score of 1482 places it near several older NVIDIA mobile and OEM parts. The nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with an average score of 1463, which is 1.3% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce 800M scores 1460, 1.5% slower, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM scores 1446, 2.5% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 scores 1443, 2.7% slower. These deltas indicate that the Arc B390 is only marginally ahead of these legacy GPUs, and the performance differences are small enough that real-world gaming results would be nearly indistinguishable.

The CPU side of the equation tells a very different story. The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X sits in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 57498. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9015 at 57555, which is 0.1% faster, and the AMD EPYC 7313 at 57399, which is 0.2% slower. The Intel Core i9-14900 scores 58115, 1.1% faster, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M scores 58323, 1.4% faster. These narrow deltas show that the Ryzen 9 9900X is firmly in the upper echelon of processor performance, competing directly with enterprise-class EPYC and Xeon parts.

The disconnect between the CPU's strong standing and the GPU's weak standing is the defining characteristic of this combo. The rank of 3302 out of 3714 reflects the combined performance, and the data suggests that the GPU is the primary constraint. A system with a top-tier 12-core, 24-thread processor and a GPU that benchmarks near the GT 710 is inherently limited in gaming scenarios, particularly for a simulation title like Microsoft Flight Simulator that places heavy demands on both processing and graphics resources.

CPU and GPU Roles

The benchmark data reveals a clear division of labor between the CPU and GPU in this configuration. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, provides substantial processing headroom. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32172 and single-core score of 2253 demonstrate strong computational capability, as do the Geekbench scores of 22174 multicore and 3010 single-core. These figures indicate that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this game's performance.

The Arc B390's role as the bottleneck becomes evident when examining the scaling between resolutions and presets. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 56 FPS, which is close to the 60 FPS target. As the resolution increases to 1440p, the same Low preset drops to 45 FPS, a 20% reduction. Moving to 4K Low brings the frame rate down to 33 FPS, a further 27% reduction from the 1440p result. This steep resolution scaling is characteristic of GPU-bound scenarios, where the rendering workload increases dramatically with pixel count.

Preset scaling within each resolution reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS (56 to 43), Medium to High costs another 10 FPS (43 to 33), and High to Ultra costs 2 FPS (33 to 31). The relatively small difference between High and Ultra suggests that the Ultra preset's additional effects are not the primary performance driver; instead, the base rendering load already saturates the GPU. Similar patterns appear at 1440p and 4K, where the gap between High and Ultra is minimal (1 FPS at 1440p, identical at 4K).

The CPU's contribution can be inferred from the fact that even at 1080p Low, the system does not reach 60 FPS. If the CPU were the constraint, the frame rate would likely be more consistent across resolutions, since the processor workload scales less dramatically with resolution than the GPU workload. Instead, the data shows that the GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient to drive this flight simulator at playable frame rates, even with a top-tier CPU feeding it data.

The memory configuration also plays a role. The Arc B390 uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, which means the GPU's access to memory is shared with the CPU. This arrangement can introduce latency and bandwidth limitations that are more pronounced in a simulation title with large, streaming world data. The CPU's dual-channel DDR5 memory support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth is robust, but the GPU's reliance on the same memory subsystem adds contention.

The Verdict

The recorded data for this combo delivers an unambiguous verdict: this PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at the 60 FPS playable threshold at any tested resolution or preset. The verdictByResolution field confirms that no playable settings exist at 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. The best average frame rate across all configurations is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, which falls short of the 60 FPS target by 4 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the highest average is 33 FPS on Low settings, with High and Ultra both at 19 FPS and Medium at 26 FPS. These numbers are far below playable and would result in a stuttery, unresponsive experience for a flight simulator that requires smooth visual feedback for precise aircraft control. The 2560x1440 results are better but still inadequate, with the Low preset reaching 45 FPS and all other presets ranging from 25 to 35 FPS. At 1920x1080, the Low preset approaches playability at 56 FPS, but the Medium, High, and Ultra presets fall to 43, 33, and 31 FPS respectively.

The playable threshold of 60 FPS is a standard measure for smooth gameplay, and this combo does not meet it in any configuration. Even the most favorable settings, 1080p Low, leave a 4 FPS gap. For users who prioritize frame rate above all else, the system falls short. For those who might accept lower frame rates, the 1080p Low preset at 56 FPS is the only configuration that approaches a reasonable experience, though it still does not hit the target.

The data suggests that this combo is fundamentally mismatched for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The CPU is more than capable, ranking in the 92nd percentile among all processors, but the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. This extreme imbalance means that no amount of CPU headroom can compensate for the GPU's limitations. The verdict is clear: this system cannot deliver a playable experience for this game at any resolution or quality setting.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearest rival data for both the CPU and GPU provides a useful frame of reference for understanding what other hardware would behave similarly in this game. On the CPU side, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X's nearest rivals are all within a narrow performance band. The AMD EPYC 9015 is 0.1% faster, the AMD EPYC 7313 is 0.2% slower, the Intel Core i9-14900 is 1.1% faster, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M is 1.4% faster. These deltas are so small that swapping the Ryzen 9 9900X for any of these CPUs would produce essentially identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, assuming the same GPU is used.

The GPU's nearest rivals paint a more dramatic picture. The Intel Arc B390's average benchmark score of 1482 is barely above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1463 (1.3% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (2.7% slower). For the purposes of this game, a user with any of these GPUs paired with the Ryzen 9 9900X would experience nearly identical performance. The 1080p Low result of 56 FPS would likely shift by only 1 to 2 FPS with these alternative GPUs, and the 4K results would remain in the 19 to 33 FPS range.

What this means in practical terms is that the bottleneck is entirely on the graphics side. The CPU alternatives would not change the outcome because the Ryzen 9 9900X is already far ahead of what the GPU can utilize. Conversely, the GPU alternatives are all so close in performance that choosing any of them would not meaningfully alter the measured FPS. A user considering this combo for Microsoft Flight Simulator should expect the same sub-60 FPS results regardless of which of these nearby components they select.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the constraint that no configuration reaches 60 FPS, the best settings per resolution are those that come closest to the playable threshold while maintaining the highest visual quality possible. The database's verdictByResolution field lists no playable settings for any resolution, so the analysis below identifies the most demanding preset that achieves the highest average frame rate at each resolution.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset delivers the best average at 33 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra fall to 19 FPS. Since none of these reach 60 FPS, the recommendation is Low, which provides the highest frame rate at 4K while avoiding the more demanding presets that would reduce performance further. The 33 FPS result is 27 FPS below the playable threshold.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset again produces the highest average at 45 FPS. Medium settings follow at 35 FPS, High at 26 FPS, and Ultra at 25 FPS. The Low preset's 45 FPS is 15 FPS short of 60 FPS, but it is the only configuration at this resolution that approaches a semi-smooth experience. The Medium preset's minimum of 30 FPS suggests that frame drops could be noticeable during complex scenes, whereas Low might hold more steady.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 56 FPS, which is the closest any configuration comes to the 60 FPS target. The Medium preset averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS, High averages 33 FPS, and Ultra averages 31 FPS. The 56 FPS result at 1080p Low is 4 FPS below the playable threshold, making it the single best setting combination for this combo. For users who can tolerate a slight frame rate deficit, this is the recommended configuration.

In summary, the best settings per resolution are Low at all three resolutions, with average frame rates of 33 FPS at 4K, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 56 FPS at 1080p. No preset at any resolution clears the 60 FPS playable threshold, and the data indicates that this combo is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at acceptable frame rates. The GPU's performance ceiling, despite the CPU's strength, prevents this system from delivering a smooth flight simulation experience.