Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with AMD Ryzen 5 9600X + Intel Arc B390

This combination of AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and Intel Arc B390 lands near the bottom of the tested field for Microsoft Flight Simulator, ranking 2665 out of 2996 tested combos. The data places this pairing in the 11th percentile of all tested configurations, indicating that while the CPU is a strong performer, the integrated graphics solution severely limits the overall experience. The Arc B390's own percentile rank of 9 among all GPUs reinforces this bottleneck, and the measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings tell a consistent story of a system that struggles to maintain playable performance in this demanding flight simulator.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2665 out of 2996 places this configuration in the bottom 11% of all tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a remarkably low position, especially considering the CPU's capabilities. The Ryzen 5 9600X sits in the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713, yet the system's overall ranking is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU side of the equation.

The data shows a stark contrast between the two components' relative standings. The GPU's nearest rivals—the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710—are all legacy or entry-level parts from a different era, with delta percentages of 1.3%, 1.5%, 2.5%, and 2.7% respectively. These are not competitive comparisons; they are indicators of how far behind the Arc B390 sits relative to modern graphics hardware. The GPU's average benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is a solitary data point that confirms its position in the 9th percentile of all GPUs.

This ranking implies that for Microsoft Flight Simulator, the combination is fundamentally unbalanced. The CPU's 81st percentile standing suggests it could drive much higher frame rates with a more capable GPU, but the Arc B390's integrated nature creates a hard ceiling. The 2665th rank out of 2996 means that roughly 89% of tested combos deliver better performance in this game, which aligns with the measured FPS data showing sub-60 performance even at 1080p Low settings.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics solution based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, which are the clock figures recorded in the benchmark data. The GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its compute capabilities include 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16 operations.

Memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning the GPU relies on the host system's DDR5 memory through the CPU's dual-channel memory bus. This shared memory arrangement is a fundamental limitation for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for consuming significant memory bandwidth when rendering detailed terrain and aircraft.

The GPU's pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are theoretical maximums that the measured FPS data shows are rarely approached in practice. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482 places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rivals being the GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710. These comparisons reveal that the Arc B390 performs at a level comparable to integrated or very low-end discrete GPUs from years ago, which is consistent with its IGP slot width and lack of dedicated power connectors.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is to render complex 3D environments, handle weather effects, and process detailed aircraft models. The data indicates that at 4K Ultra settings, the average frame rate drops to 19 FPS, which is the same as 4K High settings. This suggests that at higher resolutions, the GPU is so constrained that increasing settings from High to Ultra produces no additional performance penalty—it is already at its computational limit.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 9000 series, built on Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) using TSMC's 4 nm process. It has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, with a TDP of 65 watts. The CPU features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. Memory support includes dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory.

The CPU's benchmark results show strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. In Cinebench R23, it scores 2183.5 in single-core and 17528.5 in multi-core. Geekbench results show 2923 single-core and 14438 multi-core scores. Passmark multi-thread score is 30027, with a single-thread score of 4570. These figures place the CPU in the 81st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29713.

Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (0.2% faster), Ryzen 7 7840H (0.5% slower), Ryzen 7 5800XT (0.6% slower), and Ryzen 7 8845HS (0.8% slower). These are all capable processors, and the tight delta percentages indicate that the 9600X is well within the performance envelope of these competitors. The CPU's 3DMark scores—7585 for 16 threads, 7590 for max threads, 6726 for 8 threads, and 1253 for single thread—demonstrate solid scaling across thread counts.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU handles physics calculations, flight dynamics, AI traffic, and the overall game simulation logic. The data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this combination. Even at 1080p Low settings, where the GPU has the least work to do, the average FPS is only 56, which is below the 60 FPS threshold that many players consider smooth. Given the CPU's 81st percentile ranking and its strong single-thread performance (2183.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core), the processor appears capable of higher frame rates if paired with a more powerful GPU.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080 resolution, the measured average frame rates range from 31 FPS at Ultra settings to 56 FPS at Low settings. Medium settings produce an average of 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. High settings yield 33 FPS average. This pattern shows that even at the lowest settings, the system cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS, and the jump from Low to Medium costs 13 FPS (from 56 to 43), while the jump from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS (from 43 to 33).

At 2560x1440 resolution, the average frame rates drop further. Low settings produce 45 FPS average, Medium settings yield 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40 FPS, High settings average 26 FPS, and Ultra settings average 25 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is minimal (1 FPS), suggesting that the GPU is so constrained that the additional settings complexity has almost no measurable impact at these higher quality levels.

At 3840x2160 resolution, the results are even more constrained. Low settings average 33 FPS, Medium settings average 26 FPS with a range of 22 to 30 FPS, and both High and Ultra settings average 19 FPS. The fact that High and Ultra produce identical averages at 4K indicates that the GPU is completely saturated at this resolution, and further quality increases do not change the outcome.

The data shows a consistent pattern: at every resolution, Low settings provide the highest frame rates, and the gap between Low and Medium is larger than the gap between Medium and High or High and Ultra. This suggests that the GPU's limited resources are best spent on resolution rather than on higher quality settings, as the pixel throughput demands at higher resolutions consume most of the available processing power.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K varies by settings preset. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 56 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p to 33 at 4K, representing a 21% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 41% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the progression is 43 at 1080p, 35 at 1440p, and 26 at 4K, with drops of 19% and 40% respectively. At High settings, the averages are 33 at 1080p, 26 at 1440p, and 19 at 4K, showing drops of 21% and 42%. At Ultra settings, the averages are 31 at 1080p, 25 at 1440p, and 19 at 4K, with drops of 19% and 39%.

The scaling pattern is relatively consistent across all settings, with roughly a 20% decrease from 1080p to 1440p and an additional 20% decrease from 1440p to 4K. This linear scaling behavior is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario, where the frame rate is primarily determined by the number of pixels being rendered. The CPU's strong performance means it can keep up with the GPU's demands even at lower resolutions, but the GPU's limited pixel throughput becomes the dominant constraint as resolution increases.

The data also reveals that at 4K, the difference between Low and Ultra settings is only 14 FPS (33 vs 19), while at 1080p, the difference is 25 FPS (56 vs 31). This compression of performance differences at higher resolutions further confirms that the GPU is the limiting factor. When the GPU is already struggling to fill pixels, additional settings quality has less impact because the pixel fill rate is the primary bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data provides clear guidance for extracting the best experience from this combination. At 1080p, Low settings offer an average of 56 FPS, which approaches playable territory for a flight simulator where smoothness is less critical than in fast-paced action games. Medium settings at 1080p deliver 43 FPS average with a minimum of 37 FPS, which may be acceptable for more casual flying but could result in noticeable stutters during complex scenes.

At 1440p, Low settings produce 45 FPS average, while Medium settings yield 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS. The 30 FPS minimum at Medium settings represents the threshold below which gameplay becomes visibly choppy, so players at this resolution should prioritize Low settings if they want a more consistent frame rate. The difference between Low and Medium at 1440p is 10 FPS, which is significant enough to warrant the settings reduction.

At 4K, Low settings average 33 FPS, which is the only preset that reaches above the 30 FPS minimum threshold. Medium settings at 4K average 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 FPS, which falls below acceptable playability for most users. High and Ultra settings at 4K both average 19 FPS, making them effectively unplayable for anything beyond static screenshots.

The data suggests that players should target 1080p Low settings for the most fluid experience, with 1080p Medium as a viable alternative if visual quality takes precedence over frame rate. At higher resolutions, Low settings are the only realistic option, and even then, the frame rates remain below what most would consider smooth. The 56 FPS at 1080p Low is the only measured configuration that approaches the 60 FPS mark, indicating that this is the optimal settings profile for this hardware combination.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this hardware in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The measured data shows that 1920x1080 Low settings produces the highest average frame rate at 56 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches 60 FPS, with all other settings and resolutions delivering averages below 50 FPS. At 1440p, Low settings average 45 FPS, and at 4K, Low settings average 33 FPS.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1463, 1.3% slower), GeForce 800M (1460, 1.5% slower), GT 625 OEM (1446, 2.5% slower), and GT 710 (1443, 2.7% slower).

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X a bottleneck in this combination?

A: The CPU ranks in the 81st percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 29713, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile. The measured FPS scaling across resolutions shows typical GPU-bound behavior, indicating the CPU is not the limiting factor. The CPU's nearest rivals include the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (0.2% faster), Ryzen 7 7840H (0.5% slower), and Ryzen 7 5800XT (0.6% slower).

Q: What are the frame rate differences between Low and Ultra settings at each resolution?

A: At 1080p, Low averages 56 FPS and Ultra averages 31 FPS, a difference of 25 FPS. At 1440p, Low averages 45 FPS and Ultra averages 25 FPS, a difference of 20 FPS. At 4K, Low averages 33 FPS and Ultra averages 19 FPS, a difference of 14 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank compare to other tested configurations?

A: This combination ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations. This low ranking is primarily due to the GPU's limited integrated graphics performance, despite the CPU's relatively strong 81st percentile standing.

Q: What are the minimum FPS values recorded, and where do they occur?

A: The only settings with recorded minimum FPS values are Medium settings across all resolutions. At 1080p Medium, the minimum is 37 FPS; at 1440p Medium, the minimum is 30 FPS; and at 4K Medium, the minimum is 22 FPS. These minimums represent the lowest frame rates during the benchmark run and indicate potential stuttering during demanding scenes.