Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is one of the most demanding titles in the benchmark database, and this particular pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT with the Intel Arc B370 produces results that are firmly in the lower percentile of tested configurations. With a combo rank of 2770 out of 2996 tested pairings, the data indicates a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics component, struggling to maintain playable frame rates at higher resolutions and settings. The measured FPS figures reveal a configuration that is only viable at the lowest settings and resolutions, making it a niche choice for simulation enthusiasts who prioritize graphical fidelity over fluid motion.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process node. It features a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 16 MB L3 cache, which is standard for this generation. The processor supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and it communicates with the rest of the system via PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the complex flight dynamics, weather simulation, and scenery loading. The Ryzen 5 5600GT's single-threaded performance, as measured by benchmarks like Cinebench R23 single-core at 2438 points, is adequate for the game's primary simulation thread. The multi-threaded capabilities, shown by a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 17272, assist with background tasks and scenery generation. However, the data from the measured FPS suggests that the CPU is rarely the primary bottleneck in this pairing. At 1080p Low settings, the system achieves 50 FPS average, which is the highest result across all tested configurations. This indicates that the CPU can feed the GPU with enough data at lower graphical loads, but as the settings increase, the GPU's limitations become the dominant factor.

The processor's benchmark percentile stands at 74, meaning it outperforms a majority of all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score of 20733 places it in close competition with rivals like the Intel Core i5-12490F, which scores 20802 (a delta of -0.3%), and the Intel Xeon 6325P at 20821 (a delta of -0.4%). This suggests that the Ryzen 5 5600GT is a capable mid-range processor that should not inherently limit the gaming experience in most scenarios. Yet, when paired with the Intel Arc B370, the overall system performance is dragged down significantly, reinforcing the notion that the CPU's potential is underutilized in this specific combination.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, using Intel's 3 nm process node. It features a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. Critically, the GPU has no dedicated VRAM; instead, it uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it relies on the system's DDR4 RAM for all graphical data storage. The memory bandwidth is described as "System Dependent," which introduces significant variability and potential bottlenecks. The GPU's TDP is just 25 W, reflecting its integrated nature, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The GPU's benchmark results are starkly poor, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 1184. This places the Arc B370 in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating that it is among the weakest graphics solutions in the database. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 with a score of 1186 (a delta of -0.2%) and the ATI Radeon HD 5770 at 1190 (a delta of -0.5%), which are both legacy parts from over a decade ago. The data clearly shows that the Arc B370 is not designed for modern gaming workloads like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which demands substantial graphical throughput.

In practical terms, the GPU's lack of dedicated VRAM is a severe handicap for a game that loads extensive terrain and aircraft textures. The "System Shared" memory approach means that the GPU must compete with the CPU for the same memory bandwidth, leading to stuttering and lower frame rates. This is evident in the measured FPS, where even at the lowest settings (1080p Low), the system only manages 50 FPS. At higher settings, the GPU's pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 96.00 GTexel/s are insufficient to handle the increased load, causing frame rates to plummet to the high teens and low twenties.

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured FPS data provides a clear picture of how the system scales across resolutions and settings. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 50 FPS average, which is the best-case scenario for this pairing. Moving to 1440p Low, the average FPS drops to 41, a reduction of 18% from the 1080p result. At 4K Low, the average further declines to 30 FPS, representing a 40% drop from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU-bound scenario, where the rendering resolution directly impacts the graphics workload.

The pattern becomes more pronounced at higher settings. At Medium settings, the system achieves 39 FPS at 1080p, 32 FPS at 1440p, and 23 FPS at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings is approximately 41%, which is consistent with the Low setting scaling. At High settings, the averages are 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, showing a 40% reduction. Finally, at Ultra settings, the system manages 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K, a reduction of 39% from 1080p to 4K.

The consistent ~40% FPS drop when moving from 1080p to 4K across all settings strongly indicates that the Intel Arc B370 is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the resolution scaling would be less pronounced, as the CPU's workload remains relatively constant regardless of resolution. The fact that the FPS declines proportionally with the pixel count confirms that the GPU is saturated at all times, and its limited compute and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints. This is further supported by the fact that even at the lowest settings, the system cannot achieve high frame rates, suggesting that the GPU's raw performance is simply insufficient for this game.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The pairing of the AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 7.5% of all configurations, indicating a severely underperforming system for this specific title. The rank reflects the combined limitations of the GPU, which is in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and the CPU, which is in the 74th percentile. The CPU's relatively strong performance is not enough to compensate for the GPU's deficiencies.

The data suggests that this combo is only suitable for users who are willing to play at the lowest settings and resolutions, where it can achieve playable frame rates. At 1080p Low, the system hits 50 FPS, which is the minimum threshold for a playable experience in a flight simulator. However, any attempt to increase the settings or resolution results in frame rates that fall below 30 FPS, which is generally considered unplayable for a smooth simulation experience. The combo's rank of 2770 out of 2996 is a clear warning that this is not a recommended configuration for Microsoft Flight Simulator, as the vast majority of tested combos provide better performance.

The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-12490F and Intel Xeon 6325P, have average benchmark scores that are nearly identical to the Ryzen 5 5600GT, with deltas of -0.3% and -0.4% respectively. This indicates that swapping the CPU for a similarly performing processor would not yield any meaningful improvement in this game, as the GPU is the dominant bottleneck. The combo rank is thus a reflection of the GPU's poor standing, rather than any deficiency in the CPU's capabilities.

Settings Recommendations — which preset gives the best experience per the measured rows

Based on the measured FPS data, the only viable configuration for this system is the Low preset at 1080p resolution, which achieves an average of 50 FPS. This is the only setting across all resolutions that provides a frame rate above the 30 FPS threshold, which is generally considered the minimum for a playable simulation experience. At 1080p Low, the system is able to maintain a relatively smooth frame rate, allowing for a decent level of interaction with the game's environments.

The Medium preset at 1080p offers an average of 39 FPS, which is marginally playable but still below the 50 FPS achieved at Low. The minimum FPS for this setting is 33, indicating that there are occasional dips that could cause noticeable stuttering. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p produce averages of 30 FPS and 28 FPS respectively, which are borderline playable but will likely result in a choppy experience, especially during complex scenes with dense scenery.

At 1440p and 4K, all settings produce average frame rates below 41 FPS, with the best case being 41 FPS at 1440p Low. The data does not support playing at these resolutions, as even the Low preset at 1440p results in frame rates that are below the ideal threshold for a smooth experience. The 4K Low preset produces 30 FPS, which is technically playable but will be a marginal experience. Given the measured results, the recommendation is to play at 1080p with the Low preset to achieve the best balance of visual fidelity and performance, as any other setting will result in a subpar experience.

Measured FPS Breakdown — resolution by resolution, settings by settings, exact numbers

The following is a detailed breakdown of the measured FPS for each resolution and settings combination.

At 1920x1080, the system achieves its best results. With Low settings, the average FPS is 50, with no minimum or maximum values recorded. The Medium settings produce an average of 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS. The High settings yield an average of 30 FPS, and the Ultra settings produce an average of 28 FPS. No minimum or maximum FPS values were recorded for the High and Ultra presets at this resolution.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. The Low settings achieve an average of 41 FPS, with no minimum or maximum values recorded. The Medium settings produce an average of 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS. The High settings yield an average of 24 FPS, and the Ultra settings produce an average of 23 FPS. No minimum or maximum FPS values were recorded for the High and Ultra presets at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the system's performance is severely limited. The Low settings achieve an average of 30 FPS, with no minimum or maximum values recorded. The Medium settings produce an average of 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS. The High settings yield an average of 18 FPS, and the Ultra settings produce an average of 17 FPS. No minimum or maximum FPS values were recorded for the High and Ultra presets at this resolution.

The data shows a clear trend: the system is only capable of delivering playable frame rates at 1080p with the Low preset. At all other resolutions and settings, the average FPS falls below 41, with the lowest being 17 FPS at 4K Ultra. The Medium presets at all resolutions show the most complete data, with both minimum and maximum FPS values recorded, indicating a wider variance in performance. This variance suggests that the GPU's lack of dedicated VRAM causes significant frame time spikes, particularly when the system is under heavy load. The overall picture is one of a system that is fundamentally mismatched for this game, with the GPU being the primary limiting factor.