Microsoft Flight Simulator

The data for Microsoft Flight Simulator using the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B370 presents a challenging performance profile. The measured results indicate that this combination is heavily constrained, particularly at higher resolutions and graphical presets. The following analysis breaks down the settings, component roles, and scaling behavior based solely on the provided measured FPS and benchmark data.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal experience for this hardware combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator is achieved at the Low preset across all tested resolutions. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest frame rate recorded in the entire dataset for this combo. This is 11 FPS higher than the Medium preset at the same resolution, which averages 39 FPS. The gap widens further at 2560x1440, where Low produces 41 FPS compared to Medium's 32 FPS, and at 3840x2160, Low provides 30 FPS versus Medium's 23 FPS.

The Medium preset is the only setting that provides minimum and maximum FPS data, offering a clearer picture of frame time consistency. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 33 to 45 FPS, which suggests playable but not smooth performance. However, the average FPS at 2560x1440 Medium (32 FPS) and 3840x2160 Medium (23 FPS) indicates diminishing returns as resolution increases. The High and Ultra presets are not viable for a consistent experience, with averages dropping to 30 FPS or below even at 1080p. Specifically, High at 1080p averages 30 FPS, and Ultra at 1080p averages 28 FPS. At 4K, these presets fall to 18 FPS and 17 FPS respectively, which is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay.

Therefore, the data strongly suggests that users should default to the Low preset for any resolution to maximize frame rate. If visual fidelity is a priority, the Medium preset at 1080p offers the best compromise, with an average of 39 FPS and a minimum of 33 FPS, but it requires accepting a significant performance hit compared to Low. The High and Ultra presets should be avoided entirely, as their average FPS numbers indicate a slideshow-like experience, particularly at 1440p and 4K.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, which fundamentally shapes its performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's benchmark presence is minimal, with a single recorded score of 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. This score places the Arc B370 in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is near the bottom of the performance hierarchy. Its closest rivals, such as the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, have nearly identical scores, with delta percentages of -0.2% and -0.5% respectively. This suggests the Arc B370 is comparable to very old, low-end discrete graphics solutions.

The GPU's memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system's DDR5 RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which implies performance is directly tied to the CPU's memory controller and the speed of the installed RAM. The base clock is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. These clock speeds are relatively low for a modern GPU, but the architecture is Xe3-LPG on a 3 nm process, which is efficient but not powerful in this implementation.

The measured FPS data reflects this limited GPU capability. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 17 (Ultra) to 30 (Low). The jump from Low to Medium at 4K results in a drop from 30 to 23 FPS, a 23% reduction. This indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at this resolution, as even modest increases in graphical load significantly impact performance. The FP32 compute rating of 6.144 TFLOPS and pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s are insufficient for the demands of a high-fidelity flight simulator at high resolutions. The data implies that the Arc B370 is only suitable for low settings at 1080p, where it can maintain an average of 50 FPS, but it struggles to keep up with the rendering demands of Medium settings and above.

FAQ

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

A: The best measured result is at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, achieving an average of 50 FPS. This is the only configuration in the dataset that reaches a 50 FPS average, making it the most playable option.

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

A: The Arc B370 has an average benchmark score of 1184. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, scores 1186, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192, which is 0.7% higher. This indicates the Arc B370 is statistically tied with these older GPUs in raw compute performance.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor at 1080p Low?

A: At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 50, which is the highest in the dataset. The CPU, with a strong single-thread score of 2183.5 in Cinebench R23, has the potential to drive higher frame rates. The fact that the FPS does not exceed 50 suggests the GPU is still the limiting component, even at the lowest settings.

Q: What is the impact of changing from Low to Medium settings at 1440p?

A: At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 41 FPS, while the Medium preset averages 32 FPS. This represents a 9 FPS drop, or a 22% decrease in performance, showing that the Medium preset's additional graphical effects significantly tax the GPU.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 9600X perform in synthetic benchmarks relative to its rivals?

A: The Ryzen 5 9600X has an average benchmark score of 29713. Its closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE, scores 29656, which is 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 7840H scores 29868, which is 0.5% higher. This shows the 9600X is positioned in the middle of its immediate performance tier.

Q: Does the game run at a playable frame rate at 4K with any settings?

A: At 3840x2160, the highest average FPS is 30, achieved with the Low preset. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS, and High and Ultra average 18 and 17 FPS respectively. The data shows that no setting at 4K provides a consistently smooth experience, with even the Low preset falling below a 60 FPS target.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a comprehensive view of performance across three resolutions and four settings. At 1920x1080, the results are as follows: Low averages 50 FPS, Medium averages 39 FPS (with a min of 33 and max of 45), High averages 30 FPS, and Ultra averages 28 FPS. This shows a clear linear progression of decreasing performance as settings increase, with a 20 FPS difference between Low and Medium being the most significant single step.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops across the board. Low averages 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS (min 27, max 36), High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 9 FPS, and the gap between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset at 1440p is not significantly more demanding than High, but both are heavily GPU-limited.

At 3840x2160, the results show a dramatic decline. Low averages 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS (min 20, max 27), High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The difference between Medium and High is 5 FPS, and between High and Ultra is 1 FPS. This indicates that at 4K, the GPU is saturated, and increasing settings from Low to Medium has a substantial impact, but further increases yield marginal differences as the rendering pipeline is fully bottlenecked.

The data reveals that the Medium preset is the only one with recorded min and max FPS values, which allows for frame time analysis. At all three resolutions, the min FPS is about 85% of the average, indicating consistent frame pacing but at a low overall level. The max FPS is consistently about 15-17% higher than the average, showing there is some headroom, but not enough to prevent stutters.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 7.5% of all configurations, confirming that this is a very low-performing setup for this specific game. The rank of 2770 indicates that the vast majority of other CPU-GPU pairings deliver better frame rates.

This low ranking is primarily attributable to the GPU. The Arc B370's 5th percentile ranking among all GPUs is the dominant factor. The CPU, on the other hand, performs reasonably well in isolation. The Ryzen 5 9600X is in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713. This contrast between a strong CPU (81st percentile) and a very weak GPU (5th percentile) explains the poor overall combo ranking. The CPU is capable of feeding a much more powerful GPU, but the Arc B370 cannot translate that CPU potential into playable frame rates in this simulator.

The data implies that this combo is severely unbalanced. While the CPU is a modern, capable processor, the GPU is an entry-level integrated solution. In a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for being demanding on both CPU and GPU, the weak GPU becomes an insurmountable bottleneck. The ranking of 2770 out of 2996 suggests that users would need to significantly lower their expectations for visual quality and resolution to achieve any level of playability.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture. Its base clock is 3.90 GHz and boost clock is 5.40 GHz. The CPU's benchmark scores are strong for its class, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 17528.5 and a single-core score of 2183.5. The Geekbench scores are 14438 for multicore and 2923 for single-core. These numbers indicate a processor with excellent single-thread performance, which is crucial for flight simulators that often rely on a few primary threads for game logic and physics.

In the context of the measured FPS, the CPU's role appears to be secondary to the GPU. At 1080p Low, the average FPS is 50, which is likely near the limit of what the Arc B370 can render, not the CPU. The CPU's high single-thread score suggests it could drive higher frame rates if paired with a more capable GPU. However, the data does not show any scenario where the CPU is the limiting factor, as the FPS scales down with both resolution and settings, which are primarily GPU-bound variables.

The CPU's memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. This is relevant because the Arc B370 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning the GPU draws from the same DDR5 pool. The CPU's memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s is shared with the iGPU, which could be a secondary bottleneck. The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache helps with game data, but the overall system performance is likely constrained by the iGPU's reliance on system memory for both its own operations and texture storage. The CPU's 65 W TDP and 4 nm process node make it efficient, but its 8,315 million transistors and 70.6 mm² die size are dedicated to general processing, not graphics.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows how performance scales from 1080p to 4K, revealing the extent of the GPU bottleneck. At the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1920x1080 to 41 at 2560x1440, a decrease of 18%. Moving from 1440p to 3840x2160, the FPS drops from 41 to 30, a further 27% decrease. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at Low settings is 40% (from 50 to 30 FPS).

At the Medium preset, the scaling is more severe. The average FPS is 39 at 1080p, 32 at 1440p, and 23 at 4K. This represents a 18% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 28% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total reduction from 1080p to 4K is 41% (from 39 to 23 FPS). The High preset shows a similar pattern: 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K, with total drop of 40%. The Ultra preset drops from 28 FPS at 1080p to 23 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 17 FPS at 4K, a total reduction of 39%.

The FPS drop is not linear with the increase in pixel count. From 1080p to 4K, the pixel count quadruples, but the FPS only drops by roughly 40%. This indicates that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound; it is also limited by other factors such as fill rate and shader complexity. The fact that the percentage drop is consistent across all settings (around 40%) suggests that the bottleneck is a fundamental limitation of the GPU's rasterization and shading capabilities, not just memory bandwidth. The data implies that the Arc B370 simply cannot handle the increased workload of higher resolutions, regardless of the graphical preset, making 1080p the only viable resolution for this combo.