Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, one that stresses both the processor and graphics card in ways few other games can match. The data for the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 paired with the Intel Arc B370 reveals a system that is firmly entry-level for this specific simulation, with performance metrics that place it near the bottom of the database's combo rankings. The measured frame rates show a configuration that can achieve playable results only when settings and resolution are aggressively reduced, making it a pairing that prioritizes accessibility over visual fidelity.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 and Intel Arc B370 combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combo is ranked 2770 out of 2996 total tested combinations in the database for this game. This places it in the bottom percentile of configurations, indicating that it is one of the least capable pairings for achieving high frame rates in this specific, demanding simulation.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its closest competitor, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is a negligible -0.2% difference. The data shows it is virtually tied with the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190) and AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), while it is 1.4% faster than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168).

Q: What is the maximum average frame rate achievable with this hardware at 1080p?

A: The highest average FPS recorded at 1920x1080 is 50, which is achieved with the "Low" settings preset. This is the only configuration across all tested resolutions and settings that comes close to delivering a smooth 60 FPS experience, falling 10 frames short of that target.

Q: What is the performance difference between the "Low" and "Ultra" presets at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the "Low" preset delivers an average of 41 FPS, while the "Ultra" preset drops to an average of 23 FPS. This represents a significant 18 FPS reduction, or roughly a 44% decrease in performance, when moving from the lowest to the highest visual quality settings.

Q: Does the CPU's multi-threaded performance suggest it is a bottleneck for this game?

A: The Ryzen 5 5500's benchmarks, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16429 and a Passmark multithread score of 19330, indicate a solid mid-range processor. However, given the Arc B370's extremely low GPU percentile (5th), the graphics card is the primary limiting factor. The CPU's performance is sufficient to feed the GPU, but the GPU cannot translate that into high frame rates.

Q: What is the lowest average FPS recorded in the entire data set?

A: The lowest average frame rate is 17 FPS, which occurs at a resolution of 3840x2160 (4K) with the "Ultra" settings preset. This level of performance is effectively unplayable for a smooth simulation experience.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, running on the AMD Socket AM4 platform. It has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The processor's benchmark scores paint a picture of a competent mid-range chip. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16429 and Geekbench multicore score of 7976 show it can handle multi-threaded workloads, which is relevant for the complex physics and world-simulation calculations in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The CPU's performance relative to its peers is close. The data shows it is only 0.1% slower than the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 and 0.4% slower than the Intel Core i5-12500, but 0.5% faster than the Intel Core i7-10700F. This places it in a very tight performance band, meaning its computational power is not a differentiator in this benchmark set. The processor's single-thread performance, as indicated by a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2319, is solid and adequate for the game's primary simulation thread.

However, the benchmark results for this specific game combination indicate that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck. The GPU's performance is so constrained that the processor's capabilities are not fully utilized. The Ryzen 5 5500 has enough headroom to feed the Intel Arc B370, but the graphics solution's low throughput means the CPU is often waiting on the GPU to finish rendering frames. In this context, the CPU's role is to provide a stable platform that does not introduce additional stuttering, which its benchmark scores suggest it does, but it cannot compensate for the GPU's limitations. The processor is a capable component, but it is paired with a graphics solution that holds the entire system back in this demanding title.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a TDP of only 25 W. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. Its memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's main memory (DDR4) for both capacity and bandwidth, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This is a fundamental limitation for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data.

The Arc B370's benchmark results are stark. It has an average benchmark score of 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This means it performs better than only 5% of the graphics cards in the database, a very low ranking. Its closest rivals are all older, low-end discrete and integrated solutions, such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192). The performance delta is minuscule, showing that this modern integrated GPU is on par with graphics hardware from over a decade ago in terms of raw compute power.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this GPU performance is the dominant factor in the low frame rates. The GPU's low fill rate and texture throughput, combined with the shared memory system that has limited bandwidth, severely hamper its ability to render the detailed scenery. The integrated nature of the GPU and its reliance on system memory for VRAM is a critical constraint. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 is the only dedicated GPU benchmark available, and it confirms the hardware's low performance ceiling. The data strongly suggests that the Intel Arc B370 is the clear and overwhelming bottleneck in this configuration, unable to provide the necessary graphics processing power for a smooth flight simulation experience at any resolution above minimal settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured frame rates across all tested configurations show a consistent pattern of low performance, with the system only achieving acceptable results at the lowest settings and resolution. At 1920x1080, the "Low" preset delivers an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest recorded for this system. The "Medium" preset drops the average to 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. The "High" preset yields an average of 30 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset produces an average of 28 FPS. The data shows a clear 22 FPS difference between the "Low" and "Ultra" presets at 1080p.

Moving to 2560x1440, performance scales down further. The "Low" preset averages 41 FPS, which is a significant drop from its 1080p counterpart. The "Medium" preset averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. The "High" preset averages 24 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages 23 FPS. At this resolution, even the "Low" preset cannot maintain a consistent 40 FPS, as the average is right at that mark.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system is overwhelmed. The "Low" preset is the only one that approaches playability, with an average of 30 FPS. The "Medium" preset drops to an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. The "High" preset averages 18 FPS, and the "Ultra" preset averages just 17 FPS. These 4K results are uniformly poor, confirming that this hardware combination is not suited for high-resolution flight simulation. The data shows that the system is only capable of providing a generally smooth experience (above 40 FPS) at 1080p with the "Low" preset.

Resolution Scaling

The performance degradation from 1080p to 4K is steep and reveals the GPU's limitations. At the "Low" preset, the average frame rate drops from 50 FPS at 1920x1080 to 41 FPS at 2560x1440, a decrease of 9 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160, the average drops further to 30 FPS, another 11 FPS reduction. This shows that the Arc B370's rendering capabilities are quickly saturated as the pixel count increases.

The scaling is even more punishing at higher settings. At the "High" preset, the average FPS goes from 30 at 1080p to 24 at 1440p, and then to 18 at 4K. This is a 40% performance reduction when going from 1080p to 4K. The pattern is clear: the frame rate scales nearly inversely with the number of pixels, indicating that the GPU is the limiting component. The CPU's performance is relatively constant across resolutions, but the GPU's workload increases exponentially with resolution, and its fixed hardware resources cannot cope.

The data indicates that this system is heavily pixel-bound. The drop from 1080p to 4K at the "Low" setting is 20 FPS, a 40% decrease. This is a classic sign of a GPU bottleneck, where the graphics processor is unable to maintain its throughput as the rendering resolution increases. The shared memory architecture and low shader count of the Arc B370 are the primary reasons for this steep scaling curve. The results show that users must choose between resolution and visual fidelity, as the system cannot deliver both. The limiting component is unequivocally the Intel Arc B370.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only configuration that provides a consistently playable experience is the "Low" preset at 1920x1080, which yields an average of 50 FPS. This is the recommended setup for users who prioritize smoothness and responsiveness in the simulator. While the "Medium" preset at 1080p offers an average of 39 FPS, which is still playable, the minimum frame rate of 33 FPS indicates potential stutters during complex scenes. For a more stable experience, the "Low" preset is the safer choice.

At 2560x1440, the "Low" preset provides an average of 41 FPS. This is a viable option for users with a 1440p monitor who are willing to accept lower visual quality to maintain a playable frame rate. The "Medium" preset at this resolution, with an average of 32 FPS, is marginal and may feel less fluid. At 3840x2160, no setting provides a good experience. The "Low" preset averages 30 FPS, which is on the edge of playability, but the visual compromise is significant. The "Medium" preset at 4K, with an average of 23 FPS, is not recommended for a smooth simulation.

The data suggests that the best experience is achieved by targeting 1080p and using the "Low" preset. This maximizes the average frame rate and provides the most headroom for the simulation's complex scenes. For users with 1440p displays, the "Low" preset is the only reasonable option. The "High" and "Ultra" presets should be avoided at all resolutions, as they consistently produce average frame rates below 30 FPS, which is not conducive to a good flight simulation experience. The system's performance is too constrained to support high-fidelity graphics, so prioritizing frame rate is the only way to achieve a usable result.