Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that stresses both the processor and graphics card heavily. This analysis examines the measured performance of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 paired with the Intel Arc B370, using only the provided benchmark data. The results indicate a configuration that struggles to maintain smooth frame rates, particularly at higher resolutions and settings, with the combo ranking in the bottom percentile of all tested combinations.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Matisse. It operates with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. This CPU has a 65W TDP and is built on a 7 nm process node. In synthetic benchmarks, the processor shows a balanced profile: its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 15045, while its single-core score is 2124. The Geekbench results similarly show a multi-core score of 7372 and a single-core score of 1536.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for simulating physics, weather, and AI traffic. The game is known for being heavily reliant on single-thread performance for these tasks. The Ryzen 5 3600's single-core score of 2124 in Cinebench R23 is moderate, but its performance percentile of 71 places it above the majority of CPUs. However, the data suggests that this processor may be a limiting factor at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck.

The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 5 3600, based on average benchmark scores, include the Intel Core i7-1260P (0.2% faster), the Intel Core i5-11400 (0.2% faster), the AMD EPYC 7573X (0.2% faster), and the AMD EPYC 7742 (0.2% slower). These deltas are minimal, indicating that the CPU's raw compute power is comparable to these alternatives.

When examining the measured FPS, the trend across resolutions points to a CPU bottleneck at 1080p. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 50 FPS, which is the highest score recorded. As the resolution increases to 2560x1440 and then 3840x2160, the FPS drops significantly, which is expected as the GPU workload increases. However, the fact that even at 1080p Low the system cannot reach 60 FPS suggests the CPU or the GPU is limiting performance. Given the Arc B370's low percentile rank (5th), it is likely the GPU is the primary constraint, but the CPU's single-thread performance may prevent higher frame rates in CPU-bound scenarios, such as flying over dense urban areas.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is a graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. It features a boost clock of 2400 MHz and a base clock of 300 MHz. The card's memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This is a unique characteristic that can impact performance in memory-intensive games like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads large textures and terrain data.

The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units. It also includes 10 ray tracing cores. Its theoretical performance is rated at 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad benchmark, the Arc B370 scores 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This is a very low score, indicating that the GPU is not designed for high-end gaming. Its nearest rivals, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (0.2% slower), ATI Radeon HD 5770 (0.5% slower), AMD Radeon HD 7650M (0.7% slower), and AMD FirePro M2000 (1.4% faster), are all older, low-performance parts.

The GPU's role in Microsoft Flight Simulator is to render the complex 3D environment, including terrain, aircraft models, and lighting effects. The measured FPS data shows that the Arc B370 struggles significantly. At 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 50. This drops to 30 at 1080p High and 28 at 1080p Ultra. The low percentile rank and the fact that the GPU shares system memory suggest that it is the primary bottleneck across all tested settings and resolutions. The data indicates that the GPU is unable to sustain playable frame rates at higher settings, as seen by the 18 FPS average at 4K High and 17 FPS at 4K Ultra.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

Q: What is the highest average FPS achieved by this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS recorded in the data is 50 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 rank compared to other GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc B370 is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1184. Its closest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, making the Arc B370 0.2% slower.

Q: What is the performance difference between the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and the Intel Core i5-11400?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400 has an average benchmark score of 17067, which is 0.2% higher than the Ryzen 5 3600's score of 17035.

Q: At which resolution and settings does the combo achieve its lowest average FPS?

A: The lowest average FPS is 17, achieved at 3840x2160 resolution with Ultra settings.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B370 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No, the Intel Arc B370 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it relies on the system's RAM instead of having its own dedicated video memory.

Q: What is the CPU's multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 scores 15045 in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of the system's performance across three resolutions and four settings levels. The following is a detailed breakdown of the average frame rates (with min/max where available).

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the results are as follows:

• Low: 50 FPS average.
• Medium: 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS.
• High: 30 FPS average.
• Ultra: 28 FPS average.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the results drop consistently:

• Low: 41 FPS average.
• Medium: 32 FPS average, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS.
• High: 24 FPS average.
• Ultra: 23 FPS average.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the performance becomes largely unplayable:

• Low: 30 FPS average.
• Medium: 23 FPS average, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS.
• High: 18 FPS average.
• Ultra: 17 FPS average.

The data shows a consistent pattern: lowering settings from Ultra to Low yields a significant FPS increase. At 1080p, the jump from Ultra (28 FPS) to Low (50 FPS) is an improvement of 22 FPS. At 1440p, the same settings change results in an 18 FPS improvement (from 23 to 41 FPS). At 4K, the improvement is 13 FPS (from 17 to 30 FPS). This indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck, as reducing graphical load directly translates to higher frame rates.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The resolution scaling analysis reveals the relationship between the CPU and GPU in this configuration. Moving from 1080p to 4K increases the pixel count by four, which puts a much heavier load on the GPU. The data shows a clear and steep drop in FPS as resolution increases.

At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 50 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p (an 18% drop) and then to 30 at 4K (a 40% drop from 1080p). This scaling is not linear, suggesting that the GPU is becoming the limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the CPU might be able to keep up with the GPU, but as the resolution increases, the GPU's workload grows exponentially, and its limited performance (5th percentile) becomes the bottleneck.

At High settings, the FPS drops from 30 at 1080p to 24 at 1440p (a 20% drop) and then to 18 at 4K (a 40% drop from 1080p). The pattern is similar to Low settings, reinforcing that the GPU is the primary constraint. The difference between the 1080p and 4K scores at High settings is 12 FPS, which is a smaller absolute drop than at Low settings, but the percentage drop is consistent.

This behavior indicates that the system is GPU-limited across all resolutions. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see similar FPS numbers at 1080p and 1440p, as the CPU's workload does not change much with resolution. Instead, the FPS drops significantly with each resolution increase, confirming that the Intel Arc B370 is the component that cannot handle the graphical demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings depend on the user's target frame rate and resolution. The data shows that the system is only capable of achieving a smooth 60 FPS at no tested configuration. The highest average FPS recorded is 50 at 1080p Low.

For a balance between visual quality and performance, the Medium preset at 1080p offers a reasonable compromise. It delivers an average of 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS. This is more playable than the High preset (30 FPS) and provides better visual fidelity than Low. The minimum FPS of 33 is above the 30 FPS threshold that many consider the minimum for a playable experience in a simulator.

At 1440p, the Low preset is the only setting that provides a playable average FPS, at 41 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 32 FPS, which may be acceptable for some users, but the Low preset is safer for maintaining a consistent frame rate. At 4K, all settings result in average FPS below 30, making the game difficult to play. The Low preset at 30 FPS is the only option that approaches playability, but even then, the experience is likely to be choppy.

For users who prioritize higher resolutions, the data suggests that lowering the settings to Low is necessary. The difference between Low and Medium at 4K is 7 FPS (30 vs. 23), which is substantial. Given the low percentile rank of the GPU, the recommendation is to stick to 1080p Medium or Low for the best experience. The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as it provides only marginal visual improvements over High while significantly reducing performance (e.g., 28 FPS vs. 30 FPS at 1080p).

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 2770th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 7.5% of all configurations. This ranking is consistent with the low percentile scores of the individual components, particularly the GPU, which is in the 5th percentile.

The rank indicates that this combo is significantly outperformed by the vast majority of other tested systems. The data suggests that while the CPU is a mid-range part (71st percentile), the GPU is a low-end part (5th percentile), and the combination results in a system that is not well-suited for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The game's high demands on both CPU and GPU mean that the weak GPU drags down the overall performance.

Compared to other combos, this system is likely to struggle with the game's default settings. The measured FPS data confirms this, with the system failing to reach 60 FPS at any tested configuration. The rank of 2770 out of 2996 is a clear indicator that users with this hardware will need to make significant compromises in settings and resolution to achieve a playable experience. The data shows that the system is more than capable of running the game, but not at a level that would be considered smooth or visually impressive.