Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 paired with the Intel Arc B390 produces a specific performance profile in Microsoft Flight Simulator, characterized by a heavy reliance on resolution and settings adjustments to achieve playable frame rates. The data indicates that this combination, while ranking in the lower percentile of tested systems, offers a clear scaling path from unplayable 4K Ultra settings to a playable 1080p Low experience. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS across all resolutions and presets, interprets what the scaling reveals about the system's bottlenecks, and provides actionable settings recommendations based solely on the provided data.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a steep and consistent drop as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a system where the graphics processor is the primary limiting factor. At the "Low" settings preset, average frame rates decline from 56 FPS at 1920x1080, to 45 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 33 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 41% reduction in FPS from 1080p to 4K, a substantial penalty that underscores how heavily the rendering workload scales with pixel count. The trend is consistent across all settings, not just Low; the "Medium" preset shows a drop from 43 FPS at 1080p to 35 FPS at 1440p, and then to 26 FPS at 4K.

The gap between 1080p and 1440p is consistently larger than the gap between 1440p and 4K. For instance, in the "High" preset, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 7 FPS (33 to 26), while the drop from 1440p to 4K is also 7 FPS (26 to 19). This linearity suggests that the GPU is being saturated even at lower resolutions, meaning that the performance ceiling is set by the graphics card's fill rate and shading capabilities rather than by any CPU-side limitation. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the FPS to remain relatively flat or drop much less significantly when moving from 1080p to 1440p, as the CPU workload stays roughly constant, but the data shows a steep decline, pointing squarely at the Intel Arc B390 as the limiting component.

The "Ultra" preset confirms this narrative, as it yields nearly identical performance to the "High" preset at every resolution: 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. This near-identical performance suggests that once the settings exceed a certain threshold, the increase in graphical fidelity does not translate into a measurable FPS difference because the GPU is already working at its maximum capacity. The system is effectively GPU-bound at all tested resolutions and settings, with the Arc B390's modest performance ceiling preventing any of the tested configurations from achieving high frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its benchmark scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18309 and a single-core score of 2584, place it in the 74th percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a capable mid-range processor. However, in the context of this specific game and GPU pairing, the CPU's role appears to be largely secondary, as the FPS data does not show any signs of a CPU bottleneck. The fact that frame rates drop so precipitously with resolution increases is the key evidence; a CPU bottleneck would manifest as similar FPS numbers regardless of resolution, which is not the case here.

The CPU's performance is strong enough to feed the GPU at the lower resolutions, as evidenced by the 56 FPS result at 1080p Low. This shows that the processor can handle the game's simulation and physics calculations without holding back the graphics card at that setting. However, as the resolution and settings increase, the GPU's workload grows, and the system's frame rate becomes constrained by the Arc B390's limits. The Ryzen 5 5600's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are sufficient for this workload, but they are not the factors that determine the final FPS in the higher-resolution presets. The data suggests that the CPU is waiting on the GPU for most of the tested configurations, particularly at 1440p and 4K.

In comparison to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 5600 has an average benchmark score of 20468, which is nearly identical to the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V (20454, deltaPct 0.1) and the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20425, deltaPct 0.2). This indicates that the CPU's compute potential is on par with those processors, but the measured game FPS is entirely dependent on the GPU pairing. Since the Arc B390 occupies the 9th percentile of all GPUs, the system's overall performance is dragged down by the graphics card, regardless of the CPU's relative strength. The CPU's headroom is not being utilized in this configuration, as the GPU is the clear limiting factor across all measured scenarios.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process. Its specifications include 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The GPU's memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses the system's main memory (DDR4) rather than dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent." This architecture is a significant factor in its performance, as shared memory systems often suffer from lower bandwidth compared to dedicated graphics cards, which can severely impact frame rates in memory-intensive scenarios like high-resolution gaming.

The GPU's benchmark results are sparse, with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This low percentile is a clear indicator of its limited performance capabilities. Its nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (score 1463, deltaPct 1.3) and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (score 1460, deltaPct 1.5), which are both extremely old and low-end mobile GPUs. This comparison starkly illustrates the Arc B390's position in the performance hierarchy; it is not competitive with even entry-level discrete desktop graphics cards.

The FPS data in Microsoft Flight Simulator directly reflects this GPU limitation. The highest average frame rate achieved across all tests is 56 FPS at 1080p Low, which is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience. At 1080p High, the average drops to 33 FPS, and at 1080p Ultra, it falls to 31 FPS. The 4K results are particularly telling, with all presets (High, Medium, Ultra) hovering between 19 and 26 FPS, which is generally considered unplayable for a flight simulator that requires precise control. The GPU's 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient to drive the high pixel counts at 4K, and the shared memory bandwidth likely compounds the issue, leading to the severe frame rate drops observed.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600 and Intel Arc B390 holds a ranking of 2665 out of 2996 total combos. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, which is consistent with the GPU's low benchmark percentile. The rank is a direct consequence of the Arc B390's performance, as the CPU is relatively strong; the system's placement is dragged down by the graphics processor's inability to maintain high frame rates.

The deltaPct values for the GPU's nearest rivals show that the Arc B390 is only 1.3% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which is a GPU from over a decade ago. This close margin highlights how close the Arc B390 is to the absolute bottom of the performance spectrum. When considering the system as a whole, the combo rank of 2665 suggests that users will have to significantly lower their expectations regarding graphical quality and resolution to get a playable experience. The data indicates that this system is not suited for high-fidelity or high-resolution gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and its rank reflects that reality.

The contrast between the CPU's 74th percentile ranking and the combo's 11th percentile ranking is stark. It demonstrates that a powerful CPU cannot compensate for a weak GPU in a graphically demanding title like this. The system's overall performance is determined by its weakest link, and in this case, that is unequivocally the Intel Arc B390. The benchmark results show that the CPU has plenty of headroom, but it is left unused because the GPU cannot process frames fast enough to take advantage of it.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average FPS this combo can achieve?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 56 FPS, which occurs at 1920x1080 with the "Low" settings preset.

Q: Is this system capable of 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 33 (Low) to 19 (High and Ultra). The minimum FPS recorded at 4K Medium is 22, indicating that the experience is not smooth.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600 has an average benchmark score of 20468, which is virtually identical to the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V (20454, deltaPct 0.1) and the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20425, deltaPct 0.2).

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

A: The "High" preset yields an average FPS of 26, while the "Ultra" preset yields 25 FPS. The difference is minimal, indicating that the GPU is saturated at both settings.

Q: Which component is the primary bottleneck for this system?

A: The Intel Arc B390 GPU is the primary bottleneck, as FPS drops significantly with increasing resolution, and the GPU's own benchmark percentile is only 9%.

Q: What is the lowest resolution and settings combination that provides the best performance?

A: The best performance is at 1920x1080 with "Low" settings, which provides an average FPS of 56, the only configuration above 50 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for a reasonably smooth experience is 1920x1080 with the "Low" settings preset, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the only setting that approaches the standard 60 FPS target, though it falls short. For users who prefer higher visual fidelity, the "Medium" preset at 1080p provides an average of 43 FPS, which may be acceptable for a flight simulator that is less reliant on fast-paced action. However, the "High" (33 FPS) and "Ultra" (31 FPS) presets at 1080p are likely to feel stuttery and are not recommended for a consistent experience.

At 2560x1440, the situation becomes more challenging. The "Low" preset averages 45 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. The "Medium" preset drops to 35 FPS, and the "High" and "Ultra" presets fall to 26 and 25 FPS, respectively. These lower frame rates are likely to be problematic, especially during complex flight scenarios. For 4K resolution, none of the presets are recommended, as even the "Low" preset only achieves 33 FPS, and the "High" and "Ultra" presets drop to 19 FPS. The data strongly suggests that users should stick to 1080p and avoid "High" or "Ultra" settings to maintain a playable frame rate.

The near-identical performance between "High" and "Ultra" presets at each resolution suggests that the "Ultra" preset offers no performance benefit over "High" and should be avoided, as it likely increases visual detail without a measurable FPS gain. Conversely, the jump from "Low" to "Medium" at 1080p (56 to 43 FPS) and 1440p (45 to 35 FPS) is a significant 13 FPS drop, while the jump from "Medium" to "High" is a smaller 10 FPS drop (43 to 33 at 1080p; 35 to 26 at 1440p). This indicates that the "Medium" preset provides a better balance of visual quality and performance than "High" or "Ultra" for this system.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The complete set of measured average FPS values is as follows:

1920x1080:

• Low: 56 FPS
• Medium: 43 FPS (min 37, max 50)
• High: 33 FPS
• Ultra: 31 FPS

2560x1440:

• Low: 45 FPS
• Medium: 35 FPS (min 30, max 40)
• High: 26 FPS
• Ultra: 25 FPS

3840x2160:

• Low: 33 FPS
• Medium: 26 FPS (min 22, max 30)
• High: 19 FPS
• Ultra: 19 FPS

The data shows a clear pattern: performance scales inversely with both resolution and settings quality. The only configuration that breaks the 50 FPS barrier is 1080p Low. Every other configuration falls below 50 FPS, and the majority of configurations fall below 35 FPS. The minimum FPS values, where provided, indicate that frame pacing can dip even lower, with the 4K Medium preset bottoming out at 22 FPS. This comprehensive breakdown confirms that this hardware combination is best suited for low-resolution, low-detail gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and it is not capable of handling high-fidelity or high-resolution rendering without significant compromises.