Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator — AMD Ryzen 5 4600G + Intel Arc B390

The measured frame rates for this combination place it in the lower tier of tested configurations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, with a combo rank of 3302 out of 3714 tested combinations. The data shows a system that is severely GPU-limited across all resolutions, with the Intel Arc B390's integrated-class performance constraining the Ryzen 5 4600G's capable six-core processing power. The best playable experience is found at 1080p with Low settings, where the combination reaches 56 FPS average, while any attempt to push higher quality presets or resolutions results in sub-60 FPS performance that will struggle with the simulator's demanding flight dynamics and scenery streaming.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of playable configurations. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system achieves 56 FPS average, which is the only frame rate in the entire dataset that approaches smooth gameplay for a flight simulator. Moving to Medium settings at 1080p drops the average to 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS — playable but with noticeable stutter during complex scenery loads. High settings at 1080p reduce the average to 33 FPS, which falls below the threshold for comfortable simulation gameplay. Ultra settings at 1080p deliver only 31 FPS average, making it the worst-performing preset at that resolution.

For users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate, Medium settings at 1440p provides a 35 FPS average with a 30 FPS minimum and 40 FPS maximum, which is marginally better than the 1080p High preset's 33 FPS. However, the data indicates that Low settings at 1440p (45 FPS average) is the only other configuration besides 1080p Low that stays above 40 FPS. At 4K, all presets fall below 33 FPS, with Low settings achieving 33 FPS, Medium at 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra at 19 FPS — these are not recommended for active flight simulation.

The optimal experience per the measured rows is 1080p Low, which provides the highest frame rate and the most headroom for the simulator's unpredictable scenery loads. Users who can tolerate lower frame rates may prefer 1440p Low (45 FPS average) for additional screen real estate, but the 19 FPS difference between these two settings is substantial. The data strongly suggests that this combination cannot sustain fluid performance at any preset above Low, and even Medium settings at 1080p represent a significant compromise in smoothness.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the primary bottleneck in this configuration. With a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, this integrated graphics solution (IGP) draws its memory from the system's shared DDR4 pool, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The GPU's shading units number 1536, with 48 texture mapping units and 24 raster output pipelines, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its FP32 compute rating is 7.680 TFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s.

The GPU's benchmark performance places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (avg score 1463, 1.3% behind), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% behind), GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% behind), and GT 710 (1443, 2.7% behind). This positioning indicates that the Arc B390 performs at a level comparable to entry-level discrete GPUs from over a decade ago, which is insufficient for Microsoft Flight Simulator's demanding rendering workload.

The GPU's 80 W TDP and "IGP" slot width confirm its integrated nature, with no power connectors required. The shared system memory architecture means that the GPU's effective bandwidth is entirely dependent on the system's DDR4 memory configuration, which the CPU supports at 51.2 GB/s dual-channel. This shared memory arrangement creates contention between CPU and GPU memory access, further limiting performance in a simulator that streams large terrain and scenery datasets.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling across resolutions reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. Moving from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings drops performance from 56 FPS to 45 FPS, a reduction of 11 FPS or approximately 20%. The same resolution step at Medium settings reduces from 43 FPS to 35 FPS (8 FPS, roughly 19%), while High settings drop from 33 FPS to 26 FPS (7 FPS, about 21%) and Ultra from 31 FPS to 25 FPS (6 FPS, roughly 19%). This consistent ~20% penalty per resolution step indicates that the GPU's fill rate and pixel throughput are the limiting factors, as pixel count increases by approximately 78% from 1080p to 1440p but frame rate drops by only 20%, suggesting that other bottlenecks (likely CPU or memory bandwidth) partially mitigate the expected scaling.

From 1440p to 4K, the scaling is more severe. Low settings at 4K produce 33 FPS, down from 45 FPS at 1440p — a 12 FPS (27%) reduction. Medium settings drop from 35 to 26 FPS (9 FPS, 26%), High from 26 to 19 FPS (7 FPS, 27%), and Ultra from 25 to 19 FPS (6 FPS, 24%). The 4K resolution represents 2.25x the pixel count of 1440p, yet frame rates drop by roughly a quarter, indicating that the system becomes increasingly bottlenecked by the GPU's limited memory bandwidth and shading capacity as resolution increases.

The data shows that resolution scaling is not linear, with the GPU's performance collapsing at 4K regardless of settings. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is only 14 FPS (33 vs 19), compared to a 25 FPS difference at 1080p (56 vs 31). This compression of performance across presets at 4K suggests that the GPU is saturated even at Low settings, leaving no headroom for quality improvements without proportional frame rate losses.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 3840x2160, the measured results show: Low settings achieve 33 FPS average; Medium settings deliver 26 FPS average with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS; High settings produce 19 FPS average; and Ultra settings also yield 19 FPS average. The minimum and maximum data for Medium at 4K (22-30 FPS) indicates significant frame time variance, which would manifest as stuttering in flight.

At 2560x1440, Low settings reach 45 FPS average; Medium delivers 35 FPS average (30 minimum, 40 maximum); High produces 26 FPS average; and Ultra achieves 25 FPS average. The 1440p Medium range of 30-40 FPS shows a 10 FPS spread, which is more consistent than the 4K Medium spread but still noticeable during rapid scenery changes.

At 1920x1080, Low settings achieve 56 FPS average, the highest score in the entire dataset; Medium delivers 43 FPS average (37 minimum, 50 maximum); High produces 33 FPS average; and Ultra achieves 31 FPS average. The 1080p Medium range of 37-50 FPS (13 FPS spread) is the widest variance recorded, indicating that even at the most favorable resolution, the system struggles to maintain consistent frame pacing when settings increase.

The progression across all resolutions shows a consistent pattern: Low settings provide roughly 1.3x the frame rate of Medium settings, which in turn provide about 1.3x the frame rate of High settings. Ultra settings provide only marginal improvements over High, with differences of 1-2 FPS across all resolutions. This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional quality features (likely shadow quality, volumetric clouds, and terrain detail) have minimal performance impact because the GPU is already saturated at High settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system?

A: The data shows 1920x1080 with Low settings provides the highest measured average frame rate at 56 FPS. This is the only configuration in the dataset that exceeds 50 FPS average, making it the recommended setup for smooth gameplay.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the GT 710 (1443). These are all legacy entry-level GPUs, indicating the Arc B390's performance class.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 4600G CPU limiting performance in this game?

A: The frame rate scaling across resolutions suggests GPU limitation rather than CPU limitation. The CPU's multi-threaded performance (Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13593) is substantially stronger than the GPU's capabilities, and the consistent ~20% FPS penalty per resolution step indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 4K with this combination?

A: At 3840x2160, the measured average frame rates are 33 FPS on Low settings, 26 FPS on Medium, and 19 FPS on both High and Ultra settings. All 4K presets fall below the 30 FPS threshold typically considered minimum for playable simulation.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations. This low ranking is consistent with the GPU's 9th percentile performance ranking among all GPUs.

Q: Does the Medium preset offer a playable experience at 1080p?

A: Medium settings at 1920x1080 achieve a 43 FPS average with a 37 FPS minimum and 50 FPS maximum. While the average is playable, the 13 FPS variance between minimum and maximum indicates potential stuttering during complex scenes.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G provides six cores and twelve threads based on the Zen 2 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz boosts to 4.20 GHz, with 64 KB L1 cache per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3 cache. The CPU supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, and its integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics are not utilized in this configuration since the Intel Arc B390 handles display output.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 4600G achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13593 and single-core score of 1919, with Geekbench multi-core at 6637 and single-core at 1460. Its 3DMark scores range from 726 single-thread to 4889 max-threads, and the PassMark multi-thread score is 15992. The CPU's average benchmark score of 17507 places it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs.

The CPU's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE (avg score 17482, 0.1% behind), AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE (17614, 0.6% ahead), Intel Core 7 150U (17395, 0.6% behind), and Intel Core i3-14100T (17648, 0.8% ahead). This places the 4600G in a competitive mid-range position, with performance nearly identical to modern low-power processors.

The CPU's 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier allow for overclocking, though the data does not measure overclocked performance. The 12 threads are well-suited for Microsoft Flight Simulator's multi-threaded workload, which handles AI traffic, weather simulation, and scenery loading across multiple cores. However, the measured frame rates indicate that the CPU's substantial processing capacity (relative to the GPU) is largely idle, as the Arc B390 cannot render frames fast enough to exercise the CPU fully.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination ranks 3302 out of 3714 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the 11th percentile of all tested configurations. This ranking is heavily influenced by the GPU's performance class, as the Intel Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 1482. The CPU, by contrast, performs at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, creating a substantial imbalance where the processor's capability far exceeds the graphics subsystem's throughput.

The combo's ranking suggests that most tested configurations (3714 total) achieve better frame rates in this simulator, which is expected given the game's high graphical demands. The GPU's nearest rivals — GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 — are all legacy parts from a decade ago, and the Arc B390's performance aligns with that era despite being a modern integrated solution.

The data indicates that this combo is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any settings above 1080p Low for playable frame rates. The 1080p Low result of 56 FPS represents the system's ceiling, and even that falls below the 60 FPS target that many flight sim enthusiasts prefer for smooth panning and instrument readability. The gap between this combo's performance and more capable configurations is substantial, though the exact performance of higher-ranked combos is not provided in the dataset.