Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a highly unusual combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The processor is a flagship-tier desktop part, while the graphics solution is an integrated-class component. The recorded data shows a system that falls far short of the 60 FPS playable threshold at every tested resolution and preset. This analysis walks through the measured frames per second, compares nearby hardware, and explains which component drives the outcome.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The benchmark data for this pairing was recorded at three resolutions (1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160) and four presets (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). Across all twelve configurations, the average frame rate never reaches 50 FPS. The highest average recorded is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average is 17 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows. Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, with no recorded minimum or maximum values. Medium settings yield an average of 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings drop the average to 30 FPS, again with no min or max values. Ultra settings produce an average of 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 11 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 9 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra is only 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the upper end of the preset scale.

At 2560x1440, every preset loses ground compared to 1080p. Low settings average 41 FPS, which is 9 FPS lower than the same preset at 1080p. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. High settings drop to 24 FPS. Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The relative ordering remains consistent: Low beats Medium by 9 FPS, Medium beats High by 8 FPS, and High beats Ultra by only 1 FPS. The 1440p results show that resolution scaling has a strong impact, with the Low preset losing roughly 18% of its 1080p performance.

At 3840x2160, the results become marginal. Low settings average 30 FPS, exactly half of the playable threshold. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings average 18 FPS. Ultra settings average 17 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is 7 FPS, from Medium to High is 5 FPS, and from High to Ultra is 1 FPS. At 4K, even the lowest preset fails to maintain a smooth experience, and the Ultra preset approaches single-digit territory in the most demanding scenes.

The data shows a clear pattern: resolution has a larger effect than preset changes. Moving from 1080p Low (50 FPS) to 1440p Low (41 FPS) costs 9 FPS, while moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low costs another 11 FPS. Preset changes within a resolution typically shift performance by 5 to 11 FPS, but resolution changes shift the baseline by similar amounts. The only configurations with recorded minimum and maximum values are the Medium preset at each resolution, which provides the most complete picture of frame pacing: at 1080p the range is 33 to 45 FPS, at 1440p it is 27 to 36 FPS, and at 4K it is 20 to 27 FPS.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The database contains nearest rival comparisons for both the CPU and the GPU. These rivals are based on average benchmark scores, not on gaming performance specifically. The data shows which components sit near this pairing in raw compute terms.

For the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, the nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, which scores 0.6% lower on average. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K scores 1.3% higher. The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 2% higher, and the Intel Core i7-14700F scores 2.1% higher. These deltas are small, meaning the CPU has close competition across a range of Intel desktop and workstation parts. The 9900X3D sits at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, indicating strong overall compute performance, but its gaming advantage in this specific title is limited by the GPU.

For the Intel Arc B370, the nearest rivals are much older parts. The ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 0.2% higher. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 0.7% higher. The AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1.4% lower. These rivals are from the early 2010s, which places the Arc B370 in a very low performance tier. The GPU sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, meaning 95% of tested graphics cards score higher. This percentile ranking is the single most important statistic for understanding the system's gaming capability.

A system with this CPU but a different GPU would behave entirely differently. The CPU's nearest rivals are all modern desktop processors with similar compute scores. Swapping the CPU for any of these would likely produce nearly identical frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator, since the bottleneck is clearly on the graphics side. Conversely, pairing the Arc B370 with a weaker CPU would not change the outcome much, because the GPU is so far below the playable threshold that CPU differences become irrelevant.

FAQ

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

A: The highest recorded average is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No configuration reaches the 60 FPS playable threshold.

Q: How does the system perform at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the best result is 30 FPS on Low settings. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. None of these are close to playable.

Q: Which preset shows the smallest performance difference between resolutions?

A: Ultra settings show the smallest gap between 1440p (23 FPS) and 4K (17 FPS), a difference of 6 FPS. The Low preset shows the largest gap, dropping from 50 FPS at 1080p to 30 FPS at 4K.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit this system more?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B370 ranks at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 9 9900X3D ranks at the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The CPU has ample headroom, but the GPU cannot push frame rates past 50 FPS even at the lowest settings.

Q: Are there any settings where the system maintains 60 FPS?

A: No. The recorded data shows no configuration at any resolution or preset that reaches 60 FPS. The closest is 1080p Low at 50 FPS, which is 10 FPS short of the playable threshold.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores within 1.4% of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, ATI Radeon HD 5770, AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and AMD FirePro M2000. These are all legacy parts, indicating the Arc B370 performs at a level far below modern desktop GPUs.

The Verdict

This PC cannot run Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable level. The verdict data shows no playable settings at any resolution. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the best recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440, the best average is 41 FPS on Low. At 3840x2160, the best average is 30 FPS on Low.

The verdict by resolution confirms this. For 3840x2160, the playable settings list is empty, the best settings field is null, and the average FPS at best is null. The same applies to 2560x1440 and 1920x1080. All three resolutions return no playable configurations. The system falls short of 60 FPS by at least 10 FPS at 1080p, 19 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K.

Users seeking a playable experience would need to either lower the resolution below 1080p, which was not tested, or change the hardware. Since the data shows the GPU at the 5th percentile, replacing the Arc B370 with a higher-tier graphics card would be the logical step. The CPU is not the bottleneck. Even at 1080p Low, the frame rate is capped by the GPU's compute limits, not by the processor.

Best Settings per Resolution

Since no preset at any resolution reaches 60 FPS, there is no "most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS" for any of the three tested resolutions. The database records no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080.

The closest approach to the threshold is 1920x1080 with Low settings, averaging 50 FPS. This is the best the system can do, but it still fails the playable criterion. At 2560x1440, Low settings average 41 FPS. At 3840x2160, Low settings average 30 FPS. The Medium preset at each resolution provides the only complete min/max data, but those averages (39 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, 23 FPS at 4K) are all further from the threshold than the Low preset.

If a user accepts a lower frame rate as playable, the Low preset at 1080p is the most viable option. The Medium preset at 1080p offers 39 FPS, which is 11 FPS lower than Low. The step to High costs another 9 FPS, and Ultra costs 2 FPS more. There is no configuration where the system maintains 60 FPS, so the recommendation must be to reduce resolution or upgrade the GPU.

How This Combo Ranks

The database places this combination at rank 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This means the system outperforms only 286 other combinations, roughly 7.7% of the tested pool. The rank reflects the overall performance across all tested settings and resolutions.

This low rank aligns with the GPU's percentile ranking. The Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, meaning 95% of tested graphics cards score higher. The CPU's 91st percentile does not compensate for the GPU's weakness, because Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily graphics-bound at the tested settings. The combo rank of 3428 out of 3714 places this system in the bottom 8% of tested configurations for this specific game.

The nearest rival GPUs, all scoring within 1.4% of the Arc B370, would likely produce similar combo ranks if paired with a comparable CPU. The fact that those rivals are over a decade old underscores how far this system sits from modern gaming hardware. The CPU is a current-generation flagship, but the GPU drags the entire combo down to near the bottom of the database.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data shows a stark division of labor between the two components. The CPU, AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, is a 12-core, 24-thread processor from the Zen 5 architecture. It scores at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762. Its nearest rivals are all modern Intel processors within 2.1% of its score. This CPU has more than enough compute power for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU, Intel Arc B370, is the limiting factor. It scores 1184 in the single recorded 3DMark test, placing it at the 5th percentile. Its nearest rivals are ATI and AMD parts from the HD 5000 and 7000 series, all scoring within 1.4%. The GPU's memory is system-shared, meaning it relies on main system memory rather than dedicated VRAM. Its bandwidth is listed as system dependent, which further constrains performance in a memory-heavy title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The scaling between resolutions confirms the GPU bottleneck. Going from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings reduces average FPS from 50 to 41, a drop of 18%. Going from 1440p to 4K at Low settings reduces it from 41 to 30, a drop of 27%. This steep resolution scaling is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where increasing pixel count directly taxes the renderer. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would stay roughly constant across resolutions, because the processor would be busy regardless of pixel count.

Preset scaling also points to the GPU. At 1080p, raising the preset from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, from Medium to High costs 9 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs 2 FPS. The largest drop occurs between Low and Medium, which often enables additional GPU-heavy effects. The small drop from High to Ultra (2 FPS) suggests the GPU is already saturated at High, and Ultra adds only marginal extra load. At 4K, the same pattern appears: Low to Medium costs 7 FPS, Medium to High costs 5 FPS, and High to Ultra costs 1 FPS. The GPU has no headroom to absorb higher preset demands at any resolution.

The CPU's role is minimal in this configuration. At 1080p Low, the CPU is likely idle waiting for the GPU to finish each frame. The 9900X3D's 128 MB of L3 cache and high single-thread score (6739 in Cinebench R23) would help in CPU-bound scenes, such as dense airport areas or complex weather simulations, but the GPU cannot deliver enough frames to expose those CPU limits. The recorded data shows no configuration where the CPU becomes the limiting factor.

For users analyzing this combo, the conclusion is clear: the GPU determines everything. The CPU could handle far more demanding graphics hardware, but the Arc B370 caps the system at 50 FPS even in the best case. Upgrading the GPU to a part in the 50th percentile or higher would transform this system, because the CPU has the headroom to support much higher frame rates. The current pairing is fundamentally unbalanced, with a top-tier processor feeding a bottom-tier graphics solution.