Microsoft Flight Simulator

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor built on the Zen 2 (Matisse) architecture using TSMC's 7 nm process. It runs at a 3.60 GHz base clock and a 4.40 GHz boost clock, with a 65 W TDP and support for DDR4 memory across a dual-channel bus. The CPU carries a 32 MB L3 cache, with 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core. Its 84th percentile ranking among all tested CPUs places it firmly in the upper-mid tier of desktop processors, and its average benchmark score of 34,260 sits within a razor-thin margin of its nearest rivals — within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350, AMD EPYC 4244P, Intel Core i5-13450HX, and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is substantial but not dominant in this pairing. The game is known for heavy single-threaded simulation logic, and the 3700X's single-core performance — a Geekbench single-core score of 1,593 and a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 204 — is adequate but not exceptional by modern standards. The multi-threaded headroom is more generous: the chip posts a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2,092, a Geekbench multi-core score of 8,899, and a Passmark multithread score of 22,458. These numbers suggest the CPU can feed the integrated Intel Arc B390 with enough draw calls for moderately complex scenes, but the measured FPS data reveals that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution climbs — a pattern consistent with a CPU that has enough throughput to avoid bottlenecking at lower resolutions but cedes control to the graphics pipeline at 4K.

The Intel Arc B390, by contrast, is an integrated GPU (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture (Panther Lake chip) built on Intel's 3 nm process. It has 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores, with a boost clock of 2,500 MHz and a base clock of 300 MHz. Its FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,482 places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs — a very low position — and its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX (1,463, +1.3%), GeForce 800M (1,460, +1.5%), GeForce GT 625 OEM (1,446, +2.5%), and GeForce GT 710 (1,443, +2.7%). The B390 outperforms each of these by only 1-3%, which contextualizes the FPS figures: this is a combo built for playable low-to-medium settings, not for high-refresh or ultra-fidelity experiences.

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

The measured FPS data spans four presets — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. The sweet spot for playability is clearly the Low preset at 1080p, which delivers an average of 56 FPS. That is the only measured configuration that breaks past the 50 FPS mark, and it does so with a comfortable margin over the next-best option. The Medium preset at 1080p averages 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS, which is still smooth enough for a flight simulator where frame pacing matters more than twitch reflexes. High at 1080p drops to 33 FPS average, and Ultra falls to 31 FPS — both below the 35 FPS threshold that most sim players consider the floor for a tolerable experience.

At 1440p, the Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is playable but noticeably lower than the 1080p Low figure. Medium at 1440p averages 35 FPS with a 30-40 FPS range, which is borderline — acceptable for slower flight phases but likely to feel choppy during dense urban overflights or weather-heavy scenes. High at 1440p drops to 26 FPS, and Ultra to 25 FPS, both of which are too low for sustained enjoyment. At 4K, the picture is grim: even Low averages only 33 FPS, Medium 26 FPS, and both High and Ultra sit at 19 FPS. The data suggests that 4K is not a viable resolution for this combo under any preset, and 1440p is only viable at Low or Medium.

The best experience per the measured rows is therefore the Low preset at 1080p. It offers the highest average FPS (56) by a wide margin — 13 FPS ahead of the next-best configuration (1440p Low at 45 FPS) and 23 FPS ahead of 1080p High. If visual fidelity is a priority, Medium at 1080p (43 FPS) is the highest-quality preset that stays above 40 FPS, and its minimum of 37 FPS ensures that it rarely stutters below playability. The High and Ultra presets, across all resolutions, fail to maintain even 35 FPS averages, making them poor choices for this hardware pairing. In short: prioritize resolution over preset, and choose 1080p Low or Medium.

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

The scaling behavior across resolutions is revealing. At the Low preset, average FPS drops from 56 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p (a 19.6% reduction) and then to 33 at 4K (a further 26.7% reduction from 1440p, or 41.1% from 1080p overall). At Medium, the progression is 43 → 35 → 26, representing a 18.6% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 25.7% drop from 1440p to 4K. At High, the figures are 33 → 26 → 19, with a 21.2% drop to 1440p and a 26.9% drop to 4K. Ultra follows a similar pattern: 31 → 25 → 19, with a 19.4% drop to 1440p and a 24.0% drop to 4K.

The consistency of these percentage drops — roughly 19-21% from 1080p to 1440p and 24-27% from 1440p to 4K — indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions. A CPU-bound scenario would show flatter FPS across resolutions, because the CPU workload remains constant regardless of pixel count. Instead, the FPS scales inversely with pixel density, which is the hallmark of a GPU-limited setup. The Intel Arc B390, with its 9th percentile ranking and only 24 ROPs, simply cannot fill frames fast enough at 4K, where the pixel count is over four times that of 1080p.

However, the absolute FPS values also tell a secondary story. Even at 1080p Low, the combo only reaches 56 FPS — not a high number. If the CPU were the sole limiter, we might expect the 3700X, with its 84th percentile ranking and strong multi-threaded scores, to push higher frame rates at low resolution. The fact that 1080p Low tops out at 56 FPS suggests that the GPU is also holding back even the lowest-resolution performance. This is a dual-limiter situation: the GPU constrains high-resolution and high-preset performance, while the CPU's modest single-thread performance (Geekbench single-core of 1,593, Passmark single-thread of 2,656) likely caps the absolute ceiling at low resolutions. The result is a combo that is never truly fast at any setting, but which degrades predictably and gracefully as resolution increases.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + Intel Arc B390 combination ranks 2,665th out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places it in the bottom 11% of all tested configurations — a poor showing that aligns with the GPU's 9th percentile standing. The CPU's 84th percentile rank is essentially wasted in this pairing, as the integrated Arc B390 drags the overall combo down to near the bottom of the database.

To put the rank in perspective: only 331 combos perform worse in this game. The B390's nearest GPU rivals — the GT 520MX, GeForce 800M, GT 625 OEM, and GT 710 — are all legacy parts from a decade ago, and the B390 beats them by only 1-3% in synthetic benchmarks. In a game as demanding as Microsoft Flight Simulator, that level of GPU performance is simply insufficient for modern expectations. The combo rank reflects this reality, placing this pairing in the company of very old or very low-end systems rather than alongside modern gaming rigs.

The CPU side offers no rescue. While the 3700X's average benchmark score (34,260) is statistically identical to its nearest rivals (within 0.5% of all four), that computational muscle is throttled by the IGP's inability to render frames quickly. The data shows a stark mismatch: a mid-range 2019-era CPU paired with a 2026-era integrated GPU that performs like a 2012 discrete GPU. The result is a combo rank that is more representative of the GPU than the CPU, and any user considering this pairing should understand that the Arc B390 is the defining component — for better or worse.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and preset for this combo?

A: The best measured configuration is 1080p with the Low preset, which averages 56 FPS. For higher visual quality, 1080p Medium averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS. All 4K presets fall below 35 FPS, and 1440p Ultra averages only 25 FPS.

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

A: The B390 scores 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX (1,463), 1.5% higher than the GeForce 800M (1,460), 2.5% higher than the GT 625 OEM (1,446), and 2.7% higher than the GT 710 (1,443). It ranks at the 9th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, as evidenced by consistent FPS drops of roughly 19-21% from 1080p to 1440p and 24-27% from 1440p to 4K across all presets. However, the CPU's modest single-thread performance (Geekbench single-core of 1,593) likely caps the absolute ceiling at 1080p Low (56 FPS).

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 3700X rank among all CPUs?

A: The 3700X sits at the 84th percentile among all tested CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34,260. Its nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 (34,222, +0.1%), AMD EPYC 4244P (34,220, +0.1%), Intel Core i5-13450HX (34,333, -0.2%), and Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34,083, +0.5%) — are all within 0.5% of its score.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 3700X + Intel Arc B390 combo ranks 2,665th out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 11% of all configurations.

Q: What are the FPS differences between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, the Low preset averages 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 31 FPS — a difference of 25 FPS (or 44.6% lower). The Medium preset sits in between at 43 FPS, and High averages 33 FPS.

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

The measured FPS data is presented below exactly as recorded, organized by resolution and preset. All figures are average FPS unless otherwise noted; min/max values are only provided for the Medium preset.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Low: 56 FPS average
• Medium: 43 FPS average, 37 FPS minimum, 50 FPS maximum
• High: 33 FPS average
• Ultra: 31 FPS average

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Low: 45 FPS average
• Medium: 35 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum, 40 FPS maximum
• High: 26 FPS average
• Ultra: 25 FPS average

3840x2160 (4K):

• Low: 33 FPS average
• Medium: 26 FPS average, 22 FPS minimum, 30 FPS maximum
• High: 19 FPS average
• Ultra: 19 FPS average

The pattern is monotonic and predictable: every step up in resolution costs roughly 19-27% of the average FPS, and every step up in preset costs a similar margin. The largest single gap is between 1080p Low (56 FPS) and 1080p Medium (43 FPS), a 23.2% drop. The smallest gap is between 1440p High (26 FPS) and 1440p Ultra (25 FPS), just 3.8%. Notably, High and Ultra produce identical averages at 4K (19 FPS each), indicating that the GPU is saturated at that resolution regardless of the additional workload. The Medium preset's min/max ranges — 37-50 at 1080p, 30-40 at 1440p, and 22-30 at 4K — show increasing variance at lower resolutions, which is typical for a GPU that has more headroom to fluctuate when not fully saturated.