Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + Intel Arc B370

This combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and Intel Arc B370 places at rank 2770 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, putting it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems. The data indicates a configuration that is heavily constrained by its graphics component, with the CPU's 71st percentile ranking among all processors contrasting sharply with the GPU's 5th percentile standing. The result is a pairing that can run the flight simulator, but only at modest settings and resolutions before frame rates become marginal.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2770 out of 2996 total tested combinations places this system firmly in the lower tier of performance for Microsoft Flight Simulator. With only 226 combinations ranking below it, this setup sits at roughly the 92nd percentile from the bottom, meaning it outperforms only a small fraction of tested systems. This ranking reflects the severe bottleneck created by the Intel Arc B370, which ranks in the 5th percentile among all GPUs. The CPU, by contrast, is a reasonably capable part at the 71st percentile, but it cannot compensate for the graphics subsystem's limitations in this simulator.

The disparity between the components is stark. The Ryzen 5 4600G achieves an average benchmark score of 17507, placing it within 0.8% of the Intel Core i3-14100T (17648) and within 0.6% of the Intel Core 7 150U (17395). It actually edges out the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE by 0.1% (17482). This indicates the CPU is competitive with modern low-end and mid-range desktop processors. However, the Arc B370's average benchmark score of 1184 places it in the company of legacy parts like the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), with the nearest modern rival being the AMD FirePro M2000 at 1168, a 1.4% advantage for the Arc. This GPU performance tier fundamentally limits what the system can achieve in a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The overall ranking suggests that for this specific game, the combination is not well-balanced. The GPU's 5th percentile performance creates a hard ceiling on achievable frame rates, while the CPU's relative strength goes underutilized in most scenarios. Users considering this combination should expect performance consistent with entry-level integrated graphics solutions rather than discrete GPU capabilities.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process node. It features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units, along with 10 ray tracing cores. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts up to 2400 MHz, delivering a pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute performance is 6.144 TFLOPS, with FP16 reaching 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

The memory configuration is entirely system-dependent, with the GPU using shared system memory. The bus width and bandwidth are listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively, which means performance scales with the host system's DDR4 memory configuration. This shared memory architecture is typical of integrated graphics and places additional strain on the memory subsystem, particularly in a simulation title that requires substantial data streaming.

The GPU's benchmark performance in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) is 1184 points. Its nearest rivals all score within 1.4% of this figure, including the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 at 1186, ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190, and AMD Radeon HD 7650M at 1192. These are all legacy discrete parts from over a decade ago, which contextualizes the Arc B370's performance level. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this GPU produces average frame rates ranging from 17 FPS at 4K Ultra to 50 FPS at 1080p Low, with the 4K High setting yielding only 18 FPS.

The ray tracing cores, while present, offer limited practical benefit at this performance tier, as the frame rates are already too low to support meaningful ray-traced effects. The GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring feature compatibility with modern APIs, but the raw throughput is insufficient for high-fidelity rendering in this simulator.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture (Renoir), manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. It operates at a base clock of 3.70 GHz with a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, and features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The CPU supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and its 65 W TDP makes it a power-efficient desktop part.

In multi-threaded workloads, the 4600G demonstrates solid performance for its class. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13593 and single-core score of 1919 indicate a capable processor for physics calculations and simulation logic. The Geekbench multi-core score of 6637 and single-core score of 1460 further confirm this. PassMark multi-thread performance is 15992, with single-thread at 2653. These scores position the CPU well above the 50th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (17482, 0.1% slower), Intel Core 7 150U (17395, 0.6% faster), and AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE (17614, 0.6% slower).

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's 12 threads provide adequate headroom for the game's multi-threaded rendering and physics systems. The 8 MB of shared L3 cache is modest by modern standards, but sufficient for this workload. The processor's 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs means it is not the primary limitation in this combination. However, the integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics on the CPU are not used in this configuration, as the Arc B370 serves as the display adapter.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s is shared with the integrated GPU, which may impact performance when the Arc B370 relies on system memory for its frame buffer. This shared resource contention is a consideration, but the CPU's computational capacity is not the binding constraint in most of the measured configurations.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system delivers its best results. At Low settings, the average frame rate reaches 50 FPS, which is playable for a flight simulator. Medium settings produce an average of 39 FPS, with minimums of 33 FPS and maximums of 45 FPS. High settings drop the average to 30 FPS, while Ultra settings yield only 28 FPS average. This progression shows a clear scaling with graphics quality, but even at the lowest settings, the system falls short of high-refresh-rate territory.

Moving to 2560x1440, frame rates decline noticeably. Low settings average 41 FPS, which remains acceptable for simulation. Medium settings average 32 FPS, with a range of 27 to 36 FPS. High settings produce 24 FPS average, and Ultra settings drop to 23 FPS. The step from 1080p to 1440p costs roughly 18-20% performance at Low settings, but the absolute frame rates at higher settings become marginal for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system struggles significantly. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is borderline playable. Medium settings average 23 FPS, with a range of 20 to 27 FPS. High settings drop to 18 FPS, and Ultra settings produce only 17 FPS average. These frame rates are below the threshold for comfortable simulation gameplay, indicating that 4K resolution is only viable at the lowest settings, and even then only barely.

The measured data shows that the system's performance envelope is narrow, spanning from 17 FPS at 4K Ultra to 50 FPS at 1080p Low. The absence of minimum and maximum FPS data for most configurations suggests that frame pacing may be inconsistent, which is typical of systems operating near their performance limits.

FAQ

Q: Is this system capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 1080p?

A: Yes, at 1080p Low settings the system achieves an average of 50 FPS, and at Medium settings it averages 39 FPS with minimums of 33 FPS. High settings produce 30 FPS average, while Ultra drops to 28 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It is 0.2% slower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), 0.5% slower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), 0.7% slower than the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168).

Q: What is the best resolution for this combination?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the system maintains average frame rates above 30 FPS across all settings, with a peak of 50 FPS at Low settings. At 1440p, only Low and Medium settings exceed 30 FPS, while at 4K, only Low settings reach 30 FPS.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 4600G compare to the Intel Core i3-14100T?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G has an average benchmark score of 17507, which is 0.8% lower than the Core i3-14100T's 17648. This places the two processors within a negligible performance margin.

Q: Does the CPU bottleneck the GPU in this configuration?

A: The data suggests the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile. The frame rate scaling across resolutions indicates the GPU saturates before the CPU becomes a constraint.

Q: What is the expected performance at 4K Ultra settings?

A: The measured average frame rate at 3840x2160 Ultra is 17 FPS, which is well below the threshold for smooth simulation gameplay. This configuration is not recommended for 4K Ultra.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured frame rates, the optimal balance of visual quality and performance is achieved at 1920x1080 with Medium settings. This configuration delivers an average of 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS, which is sufficient for a flight simulator where frame rate dips are less critical than in fast-paced genres. The Medium preset at 1080p provides the best experience per the measured rows, as it maintains playable frame rates while offering improved visual fidelity over Low settings, which average 50 FPS but lack detail.

For users prioritizing smoothness over visuals, 1080p Low at 50 FPS average is the best option. This setting ensures the highest frame rates and provides headroom for complex scenes with dense scenery or weather effects. At 1440p, Low settings at 41 FPS average are the only configuration that remains comfortably playable, though Medium at 32 FPS may be acceptable for users who prefer better graphics.

The data does not support using Ultra settings at any resolution, as the highest average frame rate at Ultra is 28 FPS at 1080p, with 17 FPS at 4K. Similarly, High settings above 1080p result in averages below 30 FPS, which is marginal for simulation. Users should avoid 4K entirely unless they are willing to accept Low settings at 30 FPS average, which is the minimum for acceptable playability.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals the GPU-bound nature of this configuration. From 1080p to 1440p at Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 50 FPS to 41 FPS, an 18% decrease. From 1440p to 4K at Low, the frame rate drops from 41 FPS to 30 FPS, a 27% decrease. The total drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 40%, from 50 FPS to 30 FPS. This scaling is steeper than the pixel count increase would suggest, indicating that the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth are severely constrained.

At Medium settings, the scaling is similar but the absolute numbers are lower: 39 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are 18% and 28% respectively, showing consistent behavior across settings. At High settings, the progression is 30 FPS (1080p), 24 FPS (1440p), and 18 FPS (4K), with drops of 20% and 25%. Ultra settings show 28 FPS (1080p), 23 FPS (1440p), and 17 FPS (4K), drops of 18% and 26%.

The near-uniform percentage drops across settings indicate that the GPU is the limiting component at all quality levels. The Arc B370's shared memory architecture means that as resolution increases, the memory bandwidth demand grows, but the system memory bandwidth remains constant at 51.2 GB/s. This creates a bottleneck that becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. The CPU's 71st percentile ranking suggests it has sufficient headroom to feed the GPU, but the GPU's 5th percentile performance cannot be overcome by CPU capability. The data clearly shows that this combination is best suited for 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings, with the limiting component being the integrated GPU.