Microsoft Flight Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 3,428 out of 3,714 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the combo in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, a position that reflects the severe bottleneck created by the GPU rather than any deficiency in the processor. The rank is notably poor for a desktop CPU that sits in the 85th percentile among all processors, which highlights how lopsided this pairing is for this particular title.

Benchmark results indicate that this combo is competing at a level far below what the CPU alone would suggest. The 3,428th rank means that roughly 92% of tested systems deliver better frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. For context, the gap between this combo and mid-tier configurations is substantial — the measured average FPS across all settings and resolutions never exceeds 50 frames per second, and at higher quality presets, the numbers fall into the teens and low twenties. This is not a marginal shortfall; it is a fundamental performance ceiling imposed by the graphics solution.

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. Its performance profile in this game is the dominant constraint on the entire system. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,184 places it in the 5th percentile among all GPUs, a figure that immediately signals its limitations. When compared to its nearest rivals, the Arc B370 sits within a tight cluster: it trails the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 by 0.2%, trails the ATI Radeon HD 5770 by 0.5%, and trails the AMD Radeon HD 7650M by 0.7%. It leads the AMD FirePro M2000 by 1.4%. These deltas are all within 1.5%, meaning the Arc B370 is effectively in a dead heat with a group of GPUs that are over a decade old.

The memory configuration is "System Shared" across size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This means the Arc B370 has no dedicated VRAM pool; it borrows from system memory, which in this case is DDR4 running through the Ryzen 5 5500X3D's dual-channel controller. The shared memory architecture creates additional latency and bandwidth pressure in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and scenery data. The GPU's clock speeds are a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster operation units. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS.

These specifications, while modest, are not the whole story. The real issue is that the Arc B370 is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 25 W TDP and no power connectors. It is designed for portable devices, not desktop gaming. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is notoriously demanding on GPU memory bandwidth and fill rate, the Arc B370 becomes the clear limiting factor. Even at the lowest settings, the frame rates only reach a playable level at 1080p, and they collapse entirely at higher resolutions or quality presets.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable but stark scaling pattern as resolution increases from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 50 FPS at 1080p to 41 FPS at 1440p, then to 30 FPS at 4K. This represents a 40% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is a steeper decline than would be expected if the CPU were the bottleneck. A CPU-limited scenario would show minimal FPS change across resolutions because the processor workload stays roughly constant; the fact that FPS falls by 20 frames per second from 1080p to 4K at Low settings indicates the GPU is saturated.

At High settings, the same pattern holds: 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K is 12 FPS, or 40%. At Medium settings, the numbers are 39 FPS, 32 FPS, and 23 FPS respectively — again a 41% reduction from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings show 28 FPS, 23 FPS, and 17 FPS, a 39% decline. The consistency of this ~40% drop across all settings is a strong indicator that the GPU is the sole limiting component at every quality level. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the percentage drop would be much smaller because the resolution increase would not add meaningful CPU work.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings narrows as resolution increases. At 1080p, the difference between Low (50 FPS) and Ultra (28 FPS) is 22 FPS. At 4K, the difference between Low (30 FPS) and Ultra (17 FPS) is only 13 FPS. This compression of the settings range at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is running out of processing headroom. At 4K, even dropping from Ultra to Low only recovers 13 FPS, which is insufficient to reach a stable 30 FPS target.

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 to reach the 50 FPS mark. Medium settings yield 39 FPS average, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. High settings drop to 30 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 28 FPS. The spread from Low to Ultra is 22 FPS, meaning that quality presets have a meaningful impact at this resolution. The Medium preset's minimum of 33 FPS is notable because it stays above 30 FPS, suggesting that brief dips are unlikely to cause visible stutter in less demanding scenes.

Moving to 2560x1440, the numbers step down. Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS and maximum of 36 FPS, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The Medium preset's minimum of 27 FPS falls below the 30 FPS threshold, indicating that frame pacing may become inconsistent during busy segments. The gap between High and Ultra at this resolution is only 1 FPS, suggesting that the GPU is so constrained that the visual difference between these two presets produces almost no measurable performance cost — both are equally low.

At 3840x2160, the results are marginal at best. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is technically playable but with no headroom for dips. Medium averages 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 FPS and maximum of 27 FPS. High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 1 FPS, reinforcing that the GPU has hit its absolute ceiling. Even at Low settings, the 4K average of 30 FPS is borderline, and the lack of min/max data for this row means the actual experience could be worse.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 5000 series, based on the Zen 3 architecture (Vermeer codename) on TSMC's 7 nm process node. Its base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, and it features a substantial 96 MB of shared L3 cache. The L1 cache is 64 KB per core and L2 is 512 KB per core. This large L3 cache is a key strength for gaming workloads, particularly in simulation titles that often have large working sets.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 5500X3D posts a multi-threaded score of 20,363 and a single-thread score of 2,941. Its average benchmark score is 37,018, placing it in the 85th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals are remarkably close: the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F scores 36,945 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37,093 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 scores 36,938 (0.2% higher), and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37,112 (0.3% lower). These deltas are within noise, meaning the 5500X3D performs essentially identically to its immediate competitors in general-purpose benchmarks.

Despite this strong CPU performance, the measured FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator shows no evidence of CPU limitation. The consistent ~40% FPS drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings is the classic signature of a GPU-bound scenario. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS at 1080p Low (50 FPS) and 4K Low (30 FPS) would be much closer together. The fact that the 5500X3D's 96 MB L3 cache and 12 threads cannot push frame rates higher in this game is not a reflection of CPU weakness — it confirms how severely the Arc B370 restricts the entire pipeline. The CPU's 105 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are more than adequate for this workload.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the optimal configuration for this combo is 1920x1080 with Low settings, which delivers an average of 50 FPS. This is the only measured point that approaches a smooth experience, and it leaves enough headroom that occasional dips are unlikely to drop below playable levels. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 FPS, which is also viable for players who prefer better visuals but are willing to accept lower frame rates. The 33 FPS minimum is above the 30 FPS threshold, making this a reasonable compromise.

At 1440p, no settings preset is truly comfortable. Low averages 41 FPS, which is playable but tight, while Medium averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS — this 27 FPS floor may cause perceptible stutter. The High and Ultra presets at 1440p (24 and 23 FPS respectively) are not recommended for any form of active play. At 4K, even Low settings only reach 30 FPS average, and with no min/max data recorded, the risk of drops below 30 FPS is significant. The Medium preset at 4K has a minimum of 20 FPS, which is too low for a smooth experience.

The data supports a clear hierarchy: for this combo, resolution is more important than quality settings. Dropping from 1080p to 4K at Low settings costs 20 FPS, while dropping from Low to Ultra at 1080p costs 22 FPS. Both are substantial, but the 1080p Low configuration is the only one that provides a consistently playable experience. Players who prioritize visual fidelity should consider 1080p Medium as the maximum acceptable trade-off, accepting the 39 FPS average and 33 FPS minimum. Anything beyond that — higher resolution or higher quality presets — results in frame rates that fall below the threshold for a smooth flight simulation experience.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 with Low settings produces an average of 50 FPS, the highest figure in the entire dataset. The 1080p Medium preset is a secondary option at 39 FPS average with a 33 FPS minimum.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K?

A: At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1080p to 30 at 4K, a 40% reduction. At High settings, it drops from 30 to 18 FPS, also a 40% reduction. This consistent scaling indicates the GPU is the limiting factor.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The GPU is clearly the bottleneck. The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile among all processors with an average benchmark score of 37,018, while the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile with a score of 1,184. The FPS drops proportionally with resolution, which is a GPU-bound pattern.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores 1,184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It trails the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 by 0.2%, the ATI Radeon HD 5770 by 0.5%, and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M by 0.7%, while leading the AMD FirePro M2000 by 1.4%.

Q: What is the highest playable frame rate this combo can achieve?

A: The highest measured average frame rate is 50 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The only other configuration to reach 40 FPS or above is 1440p Low at 41 FPS.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 5500X3D's large cache help in this game?

A: The CPU has 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which is beneficial for gaming workloads. However, the measured FPS data shows that the GPU's limitations prevent the CPU from demonstrating its potential — even the strongest CPU performance cannot overcome the Arc B370's 5th percentile standing.