Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X and Intel Arc B390 produces a decidedly constrained experience, with the measured data indicating a system that is heavily limited by its graphics solution across all tested resolutions. The combination ranks in the 11th percentile of tested configurations, placing it firmly in the lower tier of systems for this demanding flight simulator. The benchmark results reveal a consistent pattern of low frame rates that scale predictably with resolution and settings, painting a clear picture of a hardware pairing that struggles to deliver a fluid simulation experience.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a direct and steep penalty as resolution increases, with the most significant drops occurring between 1080p and 1440p. At the "Low" settings preset, the average frame rate falls from 56 FPS at 1920x1080 to 45 FPS at 2560x1440, representing a 19.6% performance loss. The subsequent jump to 3840x2160 brings the average down to 33 FPS, another 26.7% reduction from the 1440p figure. This scaling behavior suggests that the Intel Arc B390's rendering pipeline is quickly overwhelmed by the increasing pixel count, with the gap between each resolution step remaining substantial.

At the "Medium" preset, the same pattern emerges but with lower absolute numbers. The 1920x1080 average of 43 FPS drops to 35 FPS at 2560x1440, a 18.6% decrease, and then falls further to 26 FPS at 4K, a 25.7% reduction from the 1440p result. The "High" preset shows a slightly different scaling profile: 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p (a 21.2% drop), and 19 FPS at 4K (a 26.9% drop from 1440p). The consistency of these percentage drops across presets indicates that the limiting factor is primarily resolution-dependent pixel throughput rather than a specific settings-related bottleneck.

The "Ultra" preset demonstrates the most dramatic scaling, with averages of 31 FPS, 25 FPS, and 19 FPS for 1080p, 1440p, and 4K respectively. The 1440p to 4K transition here shows a 24% performance loss, while the 1080p to 1440p drop is 19.4%. Notably, the 4K Ultra and 4K High results are identical at 19 FPS, suggesting that at this resolution, the system has reached a hard performance ceiling where additional settings changes no longer affect the frame rate. This plateau is a strong indicator that the GPU is fully saturated at 4K, regardless of the visual complexity being requested.

The data clearly identifies the GPU as the limiting component in this configuration. The Ryzen 5 7600X, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is capable of far higher frame rates in less GPU-bound scenarios, as evidenced by its strong synthetic benchmark scores. However, in this game, the Arc B390's performance, which ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, becomes the primary constraint. The scaling pattern — where frame rates drop by roughly 20% at each resolution step — is characteristic of a system where the graphics card cannot maintain adequate fill rates at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance on which settings presets are viable for this combination. At 1920x1080, the "Low" preset delivers an average of 56 FPS, which is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience. The "Medium" preset at 43 FPS is playable but with noticeable compromises, while "High" and "Ultra" at 33 FPS and 31 FPS respectively fall below the threshold for comfortable gameplay in a simulation title where precision is important.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation becomes more restrictive. The "Low" preset achieves 45 FPS, which remains the best option for this resolution. The "Medium" preset at 35 FPS is borderline, with the minimum FPS of 30 indicating potential stutter during demanding scenes. Both "High" and "Ultra" at 26 FPS and 25 FPS respectively are too low for a responsive experience, with the former showing a significant performance cliff relative to the 1080p results.

At 3840x2160, the data suggests that only the "Low" preset at 33 FPS is worth considering, and even that is marginal. The "Medium" preset at 26 FPS (with a minimum of 22 FPS) and the "High"/"Ultra" presets at 19 FPS all fall well below playable thresholds. The identical 19 FPS results for "High" and "Ultra" at 4K indicate that the system is completely GPU-bound at this resolution, and further settings reductions would be required to achieve any meaningful improvement.

The optimal experience for this hardware pairing is clearly at 1920x1080 with the "Low" preset, which provides the best balance of average frame rate and responsiveness. For users who prefer higher visual fidelity, the "Medium" preset at 1080p offers a 43 FPS average with a minimum of 37 FPS, which remains within acceptable bounds for a flight simulator. The data suggests that attempting to run this game at 1440p or 4K with anything above "Low" settings will result in a degraded experience that fails to meet the performance expectations for this genre.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations. This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU's weak performance, as the Arc B390 sits in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, while the CPU ranks in the 79th percentile of all processors. The disparity between these two percentile rankings highlights the significant bottleneck created by the graphics card.

In the context of the GPU's nearest rivals, the Arc B390's average benchmark score of 1482 places it just 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463), 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 800M (1460), 2.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM (1446), and 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 (1443). These are all entry-level or legacy graphics solutions, which contextualizes why the combo performs so poorly in a graphically demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The CPU's nearest rivals tell a different story. The Ryzen 5 7600X's average benchmark score of 27636 is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (27578) and Intel Core i5-12600K (27578), 0.3% lower than the AMD Ryzen 5 8500GE (27712), and 0.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800 (27535). These negligible differences indicate that the CPU is performing as expected for its class, and its processing power is not the limiting factor in this game.

The ranking data suggests that this combo is severely imbalanced for this particular workload. While the CPU is a capable mid-range processor, the GPU is fundamentally inadequate for the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator at playable frame rates. The 11th percentile ranking is a direct consequence of this mismatch, and users considering this configuration should be aware that the graphics card will dominate the performance profile in this title.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of the system's performance across all resolution and settings combinations. At 1920x1080, the "Low" preset delivers the highest average at 56 FPS, followed by "Medium" at 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS. The "High" preset achieves 33 FPS, while "Ultra" produces 31 FPS. The progression from "Low" to "Ultra" at this resolution shows a 44.6% performance reduction, indicating that the settings presets have a substantial impact on frame rate when the GPU is not completely overwhelmed.

At 2560x1440, the averages are 45 FPS for "Low", 35 FPS for "Medium" (with a minimum of 30 FPS and maximum of 40 FPS), 26 FPS for "High", and 25 FPS for "Ultra". The difference between "High" and "Ultra" narrows to just 1 FPS, suggesting that the additional settings in the "Ultra" preset have minimal impact on the GPU's workload at this resolution. The "Low" to "Ultra" spread at 1440p is 44.4%, nearly identical to the 1080p percentage.

At 3840x2160, the averages are 33 FPS for "Low", 26 FPS for "Medium" (with a minimum of 22 FPS and maximum of 30 FPS), and 19 FPS for both "High" and "Ultra". The "Low" to "Ultra" reduction at 4K is 42.4%, slightly less than at lower resolutions. The identical results for "High" and "Ultra" at 4K are notable, as they indicate that the GPU has reached its maximum output capability and cannot differentiate between these two presets.

The minimum FPS values, where available, provide additional insight into the system's consistency. At 1080p "Medium", the minimum of 37 FPS represents an 86% of the average, indicating reasonable frame pacing. At 1440p "Medium", the minimum of 30 FPS is also 86% of the average. At 4K "Medium", the minimum of 22 FPS drops to 84.6% of the average, showing slightly more variance at the highest resolution. These figures suggest that while the frame rates are low, they are relatively stable without severe stuttering.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the dominant performance limiter in this configuration. Its specifications, including a base clock of 300 MHz and boost clock of 2500 MHz, along with 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, are insufficient for the demands of Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s, while mathematically defined, do not translate into adequate real-world performance for this title.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared" with a bandwidth described as "System Dependent", which means it relies on the host system's DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. This arrangement can lead to additional latency and bandwidth contention, particularly at higher resolutions where memory traffic increases significantly. The GPU's FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS and FP16 of 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) provide theoretical compute capabilities, but the measured results in this game show that these figures do not correspond to playable frame rates.

The Arc B390's single benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts from the GT 500 and GT 700 series, which are over a decade old. This context makes the performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator unsurprising — the GPU is simply not designed for the level of graphical fidelity that this simulator demands. The 19 FPS ceiling observed at 4K "High" and "Ultra" settings is a clear indication that the GPU's rendering pipeline is fully saturated.

The TDP of 80 W and the "IGP" slot width designation suggest that this is an integrated graphics solution rather than a discrete card, which further explains its limited performance. The lack of dedicated VRAM and reliance on system memory for frame buffering is a significant disadvantage in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which features complex scenery, dynamic lighting, and detailed aircraft models that require substantial graphics memory bandwidth.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X provides more than adequate processing power for this game, with its 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture. The CPU's base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz are high for a mid-range processor, and its synthetic benchmark scores confirm its capabilities. The Cinebench R23 results of 15236 for multi-core and 1965 for single-core, along with a Geekbench multi-core score of 13858 and single-core of 2603, position it well above the requirements for most gaming workloads.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5 is more than sufficient for the demands of this simulator. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache, along with 1 MB of L2 per core and 64 KB of L1 per core, provides good data locality for the game's simulation logic. The CPU's 79th percentile ranking among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 27636, places it in the upper mid-range tier — far above the GPU's 9th percentile ranking.

The nearest rival comparison for the CPU shows that it is essentially on par with several other mid-range options. The Ryzen 7 5700X, Core i5-12600K, Ryzen 5 8500GE, and Ryzen 7 5800 all have average scores within 0.4% of the 7600X. This indicates that the CPU is performing exactly as expected for its class, and there is no performance anomaly or deficiency that would explain the low frame rates observed in this game.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles the simulation physics, flight model calculations, and world generation logic, while the GPU renders the visuals. The data shows that the CPU is not the bottleneck — the frame rates at 1080p "Low" of 56 FPS are likely near the limit of what the GPU can produce, and the CPU has headroom to support higher frame rates if the GPU were capable. The consistent scaling of frame rates with resolution and settings confirms that the GPU is the sole performance constraint in this configuration.

FAQ

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

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 with the "Low" preset delivers the highest average frame rate at 56 FPS. The "Medium" preset at 1080p achieves 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS, which is the highest quality setting that remains within playable bounds.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, 1.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M, 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM, and 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates?

A: The GPU is the primary limiting factor. The CPU ranks in the 79th percentile of all processors with an average score of 27636, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile. The frame rate scaling with resolution confirms that the graphics card is the bottleneck.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p and 4K at Low settings?

A: At the "Low" preset, the average frame rate drops from 56 FPS at 1920x1080 to 33 FPS at 3840x2160, representing a 41.1% reduction in performance when moving to 4K.

Q: Why do the High and Ultra presets produce identical results at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, both the "High" and "Ultra" presets achieve an average of 19 FPS. This indicates that the GPU has reached its maximum rendering capability at this resolution and cannot differentiate between these two settings presets.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X and Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations tested.