Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F paired with the Intel Arc B370 presents a peculiar combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title known for its punishing demands on both processor and graphics hardware. The data places this pairing at rank 2770 out of 2996 tested combos, putting it in the bottom 8% of all configurations. This is not a setup for high-fidelity flying; it is a study in system bottlenecks, and the measured frames per second (FPS) across resolutions and settings reveal precisely where the limits lie.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator is dramatic and tells a clear story about which component is the limiting factor. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo produces 50 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops that to 41 FPS, a reduction of 18%. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 30 FPS, which is a 40% drop from the 1080p baseline. This steep decline as pixel count rises points directly at the Intel Arc B370 as the primary constraint. The GPU’s performance is meager, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 1184, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, cards from a bygone era. The Arc B370’s shared memory architecture, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent," means it relies entirely on the system’s DDR5 memory, and at higher resolutions, the sheer volume of pixel data overwhelms it.

The scaling pattern is consistent across all quality presets. At High settings, the combo delivers 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K. That is a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 25% drop from 1440p to 4K. The Ultra preset shows similar behavior: 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 39%, nearly identical to the Low preset's 40% reduction. This uniformity across settings suggests that resolution scaling is not affected by the quality preset; the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are simply insufficient for 4K regardless of how much detail is being rendered.

The data also indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck at higher resolutions. The Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz and a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 20851. It ranks in the 77th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, scores 24964, a delta of just 0.2%. The CPU is clearly capable of feeding the GPU at 1080p, where the 50 FPS Low result is respectable. However, as the resolution increases, the GPU’s workload grows faster than the CPU’s, and the Arc B370 falls further behind. The 4K Low result of 30 FPS is not a CPU limitation; it is the GPU hitting its ceiling.

A notable observation is that the FPS drop from 1080p to 1440p is steeper than the drop from 1440p to 4K at Low settings (18% vs. 27% of the original value). Specifically, 50 to 41 is an 18% reduction, and 41 to 30 is a 27% reduction. This nonlinear scaling suggests that the GPU’s performance degrades more severely as it approaches its limits, a common trait of memory-bandwidth-constrained parts. The Medium preset, which has min/max data available, reinforces this: 1080p Medium averages 39 FPS (min 33, max 45), 1440p Medium averages 32 FPS (min 27, max 36), and 4K Medium averages 23 FPS (min 20, max 27). The min FPS at 4K Medium is 20, which is barely playable for a flight simulator where smooth panning is essential.

How This Combo Ranks

In the grand scheme of tested configurations, this combo’s position is unenviable. With a combo rank of 2770 out of 2996, it sits in the bottom 7.5% of all CPU-GPU pairings tested for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU’s extreme weakness. The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 on 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in that benchmark are the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186, delta -0.2%), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190, delta -0.5%), and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192, delta -0.7%). These are all legacy parts, indicating that the B370 performs at a level that was considered entry-level over a decade ago.

The CPU’s ranking is far more respectable. The Ryzen 5 8400F sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25005. Its performance is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, which scores 24964 (delta 0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24935 (delta 0.3%). The gap to the AMD EPYC 9474F is also tiny, with that server chip scoring 25103 (delta -0.4%). This tells us the CPU is not the reason for the poor in-game rank. If the same CPU were paired with a stronger GPU, the combo rank would improve substantially. The bottleneck is unambiguous: the Arc B370’s 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs are insufficient to drive a modern flight simulator at playable frame rates on most settings.

The rank of 2770 means that 226 other tested combos perform worse. That is a small consolation, but the data shows that this pairing is barely above the bottom tier of hardware. The GPU’s 5th percentile standing is the anchor dragging the entire system down. For context, the CPU’s 77th percentile standing is roughly average for a modern desktop part, but the GPU’s 5th percentile is abysmal. The combination of a strong CPU and a very weak GPU creates a severe imbalance, and the benchmark results reflect that imbalance in every resolution and preset tested.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured data, the only viable path to a smooth experience is to aggressively lower both resolution and settings. The 1080p Low preset yields 50 FPS, which is the only result in the entire dataset that approaches the 60 FPS target many players desire. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS. That is still playable for a flight simulator, where frame pacing is less critical than in fast-paced shooters, but it is not ideal. The High preset at 1080p produces 30 FPS, and Ultra produces 28 FPS. Neither of these is recommended for a satisfying experience, as they will feel sluggish during cockpit views and terrain flyovers.

At 1440p, the situation worsens. Low settings yield 41 FPS, which is borderline acceptable, but Medium drops to 32 FPS (min 27), and High falls to 24 FPS. Ultra at 1440p is 23 FPS, which is too low for smooth flight. At 4K, the results are uniformly poor. Low settings produce 30 FPS, Medium produces 23 FPS (min 20), High produces 18 FPS, and Ultra produces 17 FPS. None of these are playable for a simulator that requires precise control and smooth visual feedback.

The data suggests that the best experience is achieved at 1080p with Low settings. The 50 FPS average is the highest measured value in the entire set, and it provides enough headroom to avoid the most severe stutters. If a user is willing to accept lower frame rates, 1080p Medium at 39 FPS is a reasonable compromise, as the min FPS of 33 indicates that the frame time variance is relatively stable. However, any setting above Medium at 1080p, or any resolution above 1080p, will result in average FPS below 30, which is generally considered the minimum for a playable flight simulator. The Ultra preset at any resolution is not viable; the highest Ultra result is 28 FPS at 1080p, and it drops to 17 FPS at 4K.

The recommendation is clear: for this combo, 1080p Low is the only setting that provides a smooth experience. 1080p Medium is the maximum that should be attempted, and only if the user prioritizes visual quality over frame rate stability. The GPU’s limitations make higher resolutions and presets a futile exercise.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo’s capabilities across twelve distinct configurations. Beginning at 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers the best result with an average of 50 FPS. The Medium preset averages 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. The High preset averages 30 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 28 FPS. This shows a clear degradation as visual fidelity increases, but even the lowest preset is not stellar.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 41 FPS, which is a 9 FPS drop from the 1080p Low result. The Medium preset averages 32 FPS, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. The High preset averages 24 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 23 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 1440p is just 1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are largely GPU-bound and do not scale well with this hardware.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset averages 30 FPS, which is exactly half of the 1080p Low result. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. The High preset averages 18 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 17 FPS. The 4K Ultra result of 17 FPS is the lowest measured value in the entire dataset. The 4K Medium min FPS of 20 is notable, as it indicates that the frame rate can dip below the average, making the experience feel even more sluggish.

The data reveals that the Medium preset is the only one with min/max values recorded, and those values show a consistent spread. At 1080p Medium, the range is 33 to 45 (a 12 FPS spread). At 1440p Medium, the range is 27 to 36 (a 9 FPS spread). At 4K Medium, the range is 20 to 27 (a 7 FPS spread). This narrowing of the range as resolution increases suggests that the GPU becomes more consistently saturated at higher resolutions, reducing frame time variance but also reducing the average.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS measured is 50 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: Is this combo capable of running the game at 4K?

A: Yes, but not at playable frame rates. The best 4K result is 30 FPS at Low settings, with High and Ultra producing 18 FPS and 17 FPS respectively.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25005, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F's score of 24964. It also outperforms the Intel Core i7-11850H by 0.3% (24935).

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184, which is 0.2% lower than the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186) and 0.5% lower than the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190). It is 1.4% higher than the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168).

Q: What is the combo's rank among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of all configurations.

Q: Does the CPU have an integrated GPU?

A: No, the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics (N/A), so the Intel Arc B370 is the sole display output.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Phoenix. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, with a TDP of 65 W. The CPU’s cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a modern desktop part built on TSMC’s 4 nm process, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. It supports DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, providing 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU’s benchmark scores are respectable: it achieves 20851 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2943 in single-core, with a PassMark multi-thread score of 24389 and a single-thread score of 3685.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic, which can be demanding, especially in dense urban areas or with complex weather systems. The Ryzen 5 8400F’s 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for this task, as evidenced by the 50 FPS result at 1080p Low. The CPU’s single-thread performance, with a 3DMark single-thread score of 951, is adequate for the game’s primary thread. The 3DMark 16-thread score of 6091 and max-thread score of 6165 indicate that the CPU scales well with multi-threaded workloads, which helps with background simulation tasks.

However, the CPU’s strong performance is wasted when paired with such a weak GPU. At 4K Ultra, the CPU is likely idling while the GPU struggles to produce 17 FPS. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor at any resolution tested. The GPU’s 5th percentile ranking is the clear bottleneck, and the CPU’s 77th percentile ranking is more than adequate for this game. The CPU’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, has a nearly identical average score (delta 0.2%), meaning that swapping the CPU would not change the in-game results. The Intel Core i7-11850H and i7-13620H are also within 0.4% of the 8400F’s score, further confirming that the CPU is not the issue.

The CPU’s memory support for DDR5 and dual-channel configuration provides 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than enough for the game’s data streaming needs. The PCIe Gen 4 interface with 20 lanes allows the GPU to communicate with the CPU, though the Arc B370’s shared memory architecture means it relies on the same DDR5 pool. This shared memory design is a significant disadvantage for a flight simulator that loads large textures and terrain data, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The CPU’s 16 MB of L3 cache helps mitigate some of this pressure, but it is not enough to overcome the GPU’s fundamental limitations.

In summary, the Ryzen 5 8400F is a capable modern CPU that performs admirably in synthetic benchmarks and provides sufficient processing power for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its 6 cores, 12 threads, and 4.70 GHz boost clock are more than adequate for the game’s CPU-intensive simulation aspects. The bottleneck is entirely on the GPU side, and any attempt to improve frame rates by upgrading the CPU would yield no measurable benefit. The data confirms that this is a GPU-limited configuration across all resolutions and settings, and the CPU’s role is to keep up with the GPU’s demands, which it does easily.