Microsoft Flight Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 3428 out of 3714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This is a decisively weak position, and the data reflects a system that struggles to deliver playable frame rates at most settings. The combo rank is not a surprise given the GPU's overall standing; the Arc B370 sits at the 5th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. This is a GPU designed for low-power integrated use, not for demanding flight simulation workloads.

The CPU, by contrast, is a much stronger component in relative terms. The Ryzen 5 2600 ranks at the 75th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21484. Its nearest rivals in synthetic testing include the Intel Core Ultra 5 228V (0.2% higher score), Intel Core i9-11900H (0.5% higher), and Intel Xeon D-1746TER (0.7% lower). This suggests the processor is not the primary bottleneck in this pairing; rather, the GPU's extremely limited compute capability (6.144 TFLOPS FP32) and shared memory architecture hold the system back. The gap between the CPU's solid mid-range standing and the GPU's bottom-tier placement creates a fundamental imbalance that defines every measured result in this game.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture (Panther Lake chip) using a 3 nm process, but its specifications reveal its true nature: it is an integrated graphics solution with system-shared memory. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz, boosting to 2400 MHz, and it delivers a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. The memory configuration is entirely system-dependent, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width, and bandwidth that varies with the host system's memory.

This shared memory architecture is critical for understanding Microsoft Flight Simulator results. The game is known for heavy memory bandwidth demands, and the Arc B370's reliance on system shared memory means it competes with the CPU for the same DDR4 bandwidth (the Ryzen 5 2600 supports dual-channel memory with 46.9 GB/s peak). In practice, this creates a severe constraint. The GPU's 25 W TDP and IGP slot width further confirm it is not designed for discrete-class performance. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 places it in the 5th percentile, with nearest rivals being the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% higher), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% higher), and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% higher) — all ancient parts by modern standards.

The measured FPS data reflects this GPU limitation. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 50 FPS, but this drops to 30 FPS at High and 28 FPS at Ultra. The GPU's low fill rate and memory bandwidth constraints are the obvious culprits. Even at the lowest settings, the Arc B370 cannot push past 50 FPS, and at higher settings, it falls below 30 FPS. This is not a CPU-bound scenario; the Ryzen 5 2600's 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for this game's demands, but the GPU simply cannot render the scene fast enough.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling pattern in the measured data is telling. From 1080p to 1440p to 4K, the frame rates drop consistently across all settings, but the magnitude of the drop reveals where the bottleneck lies. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 50 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p (an 18% drop) to 30 at 4K (a 40% drop from 1080p). At Medium settings, the progression is 39 → 32 → 23 FPS, representing a 41% drop from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, it is 30 → 24 → 18 FPS, a 40% drop. At Ultra, it is 28 → 23 → 17 FPS, a 39% drop.

These percentage drops are relatively uniform across settings, which is a classic sign of GPU-bound performance. When the limiting factor is the GPU's rasterization throughput and memory bandwidth, increasing resolution proportionally increases the pixel count, leading to predictable frame rate declines. The fact that the drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 40% across all settings — not more severe at higher settings — indicates that the GPU is not running out of specific resources (like VRAM, since it uses system shared memory) but rather is limited by raw compute and fill rate.

The CPU's role in resolution scaling is minimal here. The Ryzen 5 2600's 6-core/12-thread configuration with a 3.40 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost clock is sufficient to feed the GPU at all resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see smaller FPS differences between 1080p and 4K, because the CPU would limit the frame rate regardless of resolution. Instead, the data shows clear resolution-dependent scaling, confirming the GPU is the limiting component across the board.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that approaches smooth gameplay. Medium settings drop to 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 FPS and maximum of 45 FPS. High settings yield 30 FPS average, and Ultra drops further to 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 22 FPS, indicating that the GPU's limited shading units (1280) and texture units (40) are heavily taxed by the higher-quality settings.

At 2560x1440, the results become marginal. Low settings average 41 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. Medium averages 32 FPS (minimum 27, maximum 36), High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The 1440p data shows a compression of the settings range: Low to Ultra spans only 18 FPS, compared to 22 FPS at 1080p. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so overwhelmed that even the difference between Low and Ultra becomes less pronounced — both are struggling to maintain playable frame rates.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is the best 4K result. Medium averages 23 FPS (minimum 20, maximum 27), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The 4K data shows a narrowing range of just 13 FPS between Low and Ultra. This is a clear sign of a GPU that is completely saturated; even dropping to the lowest settings cannot overcome the fundamental compute and memory bandwidth limits.

The minimum FPS data, where available, shows the consistency of the experience. At 1080p Medium, the minimum of 33 FPS means the system occasionally dips below the average but does not suffer catastrophic stutters. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 27 FPS is still playable. At 4K Medium, the minimum of 20 FPS is borderline. These minimums indicate that the frame pacing is relatively stable for a GPU in this performance class, but the averages are simply too low for a satisfying experience in a flight simulator where smooth visuals matter.

Settings Recommendations

The data clearly indicates that Low settings are the only viable option for achieving playable frame rates, and even then, only at 1080p or 1440p. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 50 FPS, which is the single playable configuration in the entire measured set. At 1440p Low, the average drops to 41 FPS, which is acceptable for a flight simulator where precise control matters more than twitch responsiveness. At 4K Low, the average is 30 FPS, which is borderline but may be tolerable for slower flight phases.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over frame rate, Medium settings at 1080p (39 FPS average) or 1440p (32 FPS average) are the best compromise. The Medium preset at 1080p maintains a minimum of 33 FPS, which is above the stutter threshold. At 1440p Medium, the minimum of 27 FPS is lower but still playable. High and Ultra settings are not recommended at any resolution, as they consistently produce averages below 30 FPS (30 FPS at 1080p High, 24 FPS at 1440p High, 18 FPS at 4K High, and 28 FPS at 1080p Ultra, 23 FPS at 1440p Ultra, 17 FPS at 4K Ultra).

The recommendation is straightforward: use Low settings at 1080p for the best experience, or Medium at 1080p if visual quality is a priority. For 1440p, Low is the only sensible choice. 4K should be avoided entirely, as even Low settings produce only 30 FPS average. The GPU's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs makes it clear that this combo is not designed for high-fidelity flight simulation, and the settings should be chosen accordingly.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 2000 series (Zen+ architecture, Pinnacle Ridge codename), manufactured on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The cache hierarchy includes 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. It released in April 2018 with a launch MSRP of $199 and remains in active production.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is secondary to the GPU, but its specifications still matter. The game relies on CPU for physics, flight model calculations, and scenery loading. The Ryzen 5 2600's 6 cores and 12 threads are adequate for this workload, and its single-thread performance (Geekbench single-core score of 1154, Passmark single-thread score of 2239) is sufficient to avoid becoming the primary bottleneck at the frame rates this GPU can produce.

The CPU's percentile rank of 75% among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 21484, stands in stark contrast to the GPU's 5th percentile ranking. The nearest CPU rivals in synthetic benchmarks — Intel Core Ultra 5 228V, Intel Core i9-11900H, Intel Xeon D-1746TER, and AMD EPYC 9454 — all have average scores within 1.2% of the Ryzen 5 2600, showing that the CPU is competitive with much newer and more expensive parts in general compute tasks.

However, the CPU's memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s is a potential concern when paired with a GPU that uses system shared memory. The Arc B370 has no dedicated VRAM, so it must access the same DDR4 memory as the CPU. This creates a shared bandwidth pool that can become a bottleneck in memory-intensive scenarios. The fact that the FPS drops are so consistent across resolutions suggests that the memory system is not the primary limiter — if it were, we would see more erratic behavior — but it likely contributes to the overall low performance.

The CPU's boost clock of 3.90 GHz is modest by modern standards, but the game's measured results show that the CPU is not the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 50 FPS, which is far below what the CPU could theoretically support. The bottleneck is clearly the GPU's 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 compute, 48 GPixel/s pixel rate, and system-shared memory. The Ryzen 5 2600 is doing its job; the Arc B370 simply cannot keep up with the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution above 1080p Low.