Microsoft Flight Simulator

Measured FPS Breakdown

The recorded data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with this combination of an AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Intel Arc B370 shows a challenging performance profile. Across all resolutions and presets, the average frame rates fall below the 60 FPS playability threshold, and the measured results indicate that this system struggles to deliver smooth flight simulation experiences.

At 3840x2160, the highest resolution tested, the average frame rates are consistently low. The Low preset delivers an average of 30 FPS, which is the strongest result at this resolution. Medium settings produce an average of 23 FPS, with a recorded minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. High settings average 18 FPS, while Ultra drops to 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 13 FPS, showing that the graphics load at 4K severely limits the GPU.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance improves but remains far from playable. Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and maximum of 36, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 18 FPS, which indicates that the preset choice has a meaningful impact, but even the least demanding settings cannot reach 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the best results appear. Low settings average 50 FPS, which is the highest average recorded in the entire dataset. Medium settings average 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 22 FPS, the largest preset scaling across all resolutions. Even at 1080p, no preset clears the 60 FPS threshold, and the best average falls 10 FPS short.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each resolution step down from 4K to 1440p to 1080p yields roughly a 10 FPS improvement at Low settings, while the higher presets improve by smaller margins. The minimum and maximum values recorded only for Medium presets show that frame pacing at 3840x2160 Medium ranges from 20 to 27 FPS, while at 2560x1440 Medium it ranges from 27 to 36 FPS, and at 1920x1080 Medium from 33 to 45 FPS. These ranges suggest that the system maintains relatively stable frame times, but at unacceptably low levels.

FAQ

Q: Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: No. The recorded data shows that the highest average FPS across all tested resolutions and presets is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. Every other combination falls below that, and the playable threshold is set at 60 FPS.

Q: What is the best average FPS this system can produce?

A: The best recorded average is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The next best is 41 FPS at 2560x1440 with Low settings, followed by 39 FPS at 1920x1080 with Medium settings.

Q: How does the Ultra preset compare to Low at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low averages 50 FPS while Ultra averages 28 FPS, a difference of 22 FPS. This is the largest preset gap recorded in the dataset, indicating that Ultra settings impose a substantial additional load on the GPU.

Q: Does resolution scaling help performance?

A: Yes, but not enough to reach playability. Dropping from 3840x2160 to 2560x1440 at Low settings improves the average from 30 FPS to 41 FPS, an 11 FPS gain. Dropping further to 1920x1080 at Low improves it to 50 FPS, another 9 FPS gain. The cumulative improvement from 4K Low to 1080p Low is 20 FPS.

Q: What are the minimum and maximum FPS values available in the data?

A: The dataset only includes minimum and maximum values for Medium presets. At 3840x2160 Medium, the range is 20 to 27 FPS. At 2560x1440 Medium, it is 27 to 36 FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, it is 33 to 45 FPS. Other presets report only average values.

Q: How does this system rank among all tested combinations?

A: The combination ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos for this game, placing it in the lower percentile of systems. The GPU alone sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, which explains the consistently low frame rates.

Similar Performance Alternatives

Looking at the nearest rivals for both components provides context for what similar hardware would achieve. The CPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, has an average benchmark score of 75779 and sits at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. Its closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 with an average score of 75738 and a delta of 0.1 percent, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75716 with a 0.1 percent delta, the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582 with a 0.3 percent delta, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 at 75488 with a 0.4 percent delta. These CPUs are effectively equivalent in raw processing power, so swapping the 9950X3D for any of these would produce nearly identical results in this game. The CPU is not the limiting factor here.

The GPU tells a different story. The Intel Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184 and sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186 with a delta of -0.2 percent, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 with a delta of -0.5 percent, the AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192 with a delta of -0.7 percent, and the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168 with a delta of 1.4 percent. These are all older or lower-tier graphics solutions, and the Arc B370 performs within a 1.4 percent band of them. In practical terms, a system with any of these GPUs paired with a high-end CPU would land in the same FPS range: roughly 17 to 30 FPS at 4K, 23 to 41 FPS at 1440p, and 28 to 50 FPS at 1080p, depending on the preset.

Because the CPU is vastly more powerful than the GPU, replacing the GPU with one of its rivals would shift performance by only a few percent. Conversely, replacing the CPU with one of its rivals would have almost no measurable effect, since the GPU bottleneck dominates. The data indicates that this is a heavily GPU-bound scenario across all resolutions and presets.

The Verdict

Can this PC run Microsoft Flight Simulator? Based on the measured data, no. The verdict by resolution is consistent: at 3840x2160, there are no playable settings, meaning no preset reaches an average of 60 FPS. At 2560x1440, the same result applies: no playable settings. At 1920x1080, again, no playable settings. The best average FPS at any resolution and preset is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, which is 10 FPS short of the 60 FPS threshold.

For a flight simulator, where smooth frame pacing matters for reading instruments and controlling the aircraft, running at 50 FPS with occasional dips is not a comfortable experience. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS, which means the system will spend time below 40 FPS during demanding scenes. Even at the lowest settings, the system cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS.

The practical takeaway is that this combination is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any tested resolution if 60 FPS is the goal. The GPU is the clear bottleneck, and no CPU-side adjustment will fix it. Users would need a substantially more powerful graphics solution to approach playability.

CPU and GPU Roles

The data reveals a stark imbalance between the CPU and GPU in this system. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a 16-core, 32-thread processor with a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, a 128 MB L3 cache, and benchmark scores in the 95th percentile. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 42018, and its single-core score is 2259. This is a top-tier desktop CPU. The Intel Arc B370, by contrast, is an integrated graphics solution with 1280 shading units, a boost clock of 2400 MHz, and a 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile. Its FP32 performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, which is modest for modern gaming.

The frame rate scaling across resolutions confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor. At 3840x2160 Low, the system averages 30 FPS. At 2560x1440 Low, it averages 41 FPS. At 1920x1080 Low, it averages 50 FPS. This is classic GPU-bound behavior: as resolution drops, the pixel count decreases, and the GPU can push more frames. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect similar frame rates across resolutions, but the 20 FPS improvement from 4K to 1080p at Low settings shows the GPU is doing all the heavy lifting.

Preset scaling reinforces this conclusion. At 1080p, moving from Low to Ultra drops the average from 50 FPS to 28 FPS, a 44 percent reduction. At 1440p, Low to Ultra drops from 41 FPS to 23 FPS, a 44 percent reduction. At 4K, Low to Ultra drops from 30 FPS to 17 FPS, a 43 percent reduction. The consistent percentage loss across resolutions indicates that the GPU's compute and memory resources are saturated, and each increase in graphics load directly reduces output.

The CPU's role in this game is secondary. Even with one of the fastest consumer CPUs available, the system cannot overcome the GPU's limitations. The CPU benchmarks show immense headroom: a 3DMark max threads score of 17184 and a Passmark multithread score of 70255 suggest that the processor is far from stressed. In this configuration, the CPU likely has utilization well below its capacity, while the GPU runs at its limit. For users considering upgrades, the GPU is the component that must be replaced to gain meaningful FPS improvements.

Best Settings per Resolution

Given the measured data, there is no preset at any resolution that reaches the 60 FPS playability threshold. The verdict by resolution lists no playable settings for 3840x2160, 2560x1440, or 1920x1080. However, the data does identify which preset delivers the highest average FPS at each resolution, even if it falls short of playable.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset delivers the best average at 30 FPS. Medium averages 23 FPS, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. If a user must run at 4K, Low is the only viable option, and it will still be a stutter-prone experience.

At 2560x1440, Low again provides the best average at 41 FPS. Medium averages 32 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The 9 FPS gap between Low and Medium is significant, but neither reaches 60 FPS.

At 1920x1080, Low delivers the best average at 50 FPS. Medium averages 39 FPS, High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. The 11 FPS improvement from Medium to Low is the largest single-step gain at this resolution, and it brings the system closest to the playability threshold.

The practical recommendation is to use Low settings at 1080p if the goal is the highest possible frame rate. The Medium preset at 1080p provides a better visual experience but costs 11 FPS on average, dropping the system to 39 FPS. Since no setting achieves 60 FPS, users must decide between the least-bad frame rate at Low or a richer visual presentation at Medium with lower performance. The data does not support any preset as a "best" choice for playability, as all fall below the threshold.