Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, specifically the Cezanne die, built on a 7 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, with a 65 W TDP. In this simulation-heavy title, the CPU’s multi-threaded capacity is a significant factor. Its benchmark data shows a 3DMark 16-thread score of 6628 and a max-thread score of 6617, indicating that the chip scales well up to its full thread count. The 16 MB of L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support, with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, provide the data throughput necessary for the complex world-streaming calculations Microsoft Flight Simulator performs. The CPU’s single-thread performance, evidenced by a 3DMark single-thread score of 901 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2916, is also critical, as the game’s main simulation thread often relies on strong per-core performance.

Looking at the processor’s overall standing, the Ryzen 7 5700 holds a 78th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25517. Its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are the Intel Xeon D-2752TER and the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H, both scoring within 0.1% of this chip, showing that its raw computational output is competitive with those parts. However, in the context of this game, the combination of the CPU with the Intel Arc B390 graphics results in a specific bottleneck profile. The processor provides ample headroom for the graphics card to be the limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions and settings, as will be detailed in the resolution scaling section.

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

The Ryzen 7 5700’s configuration of 8 cores and 16 threads is well-suited for the parallel tasks of Microsoft Flight Simulator, such as terrain loading, weather simulation, and traffic management. The base and boost clocks of 3.70 GHz and 4.60 GHz, respectively, are moderate, but the Zen 3 architecture’s efficiency ensures that the processor can maintain these frequencies under load. The 16 MB of L3 cache is a shared pool that helps reduce latency when multiple cores access the same game data. In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU demonstrates a strong scaling curve from 2 threads (1762 in 3DMark) to 8 threads (5585), with only a marginal gain when moving to the max thread count (6617), indicating that the chip is effectively saturated by 8 fully loaded threads. This suggests that the game’s engine, which typically uses a mix of heavy single-threaded and lighter multi-threaded workloads, is likely to be well-served by the core layout.

The data suggests that the CPU is not the primary constraint in this pairing. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 56 FPS, which is the highest average frame rate recorded across all tested configurations. If the CPU were severely limiting, we would expect to see this figure capped at a lower value, regardless of the GPU load. Instead, we see a clear scaling pattern where lowering the resolution or graphical fidelity increases the frame rate, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound scenario. The processor’s 3DMark 4-thread score of 3382 and 2-thread score of 1762 are solid, but they are not exceptional, meaning that in a less demanding scene, the CPU could potentially become a factor. Yet, the measured data indicates that the Intel Arc B390 is the component that governs the final output.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture and built on Intel’s 3 nm process. It is a mobile-oriented part, drawing a maximum of 80 W. Its clock speeds are listed as a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz. The most critical specification for this game is its memory configuration: it uses "System Shared" memory, with bandwidth that is "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the system’s DDR4 RAM, which the Ryzen 7 5700 supports with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. This shared memory architecture is a fundamental limitation for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads massive textures and terrain data. The GPU’s compute capabilities include 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is rated at 7.680 TFLOPS.

The GPU’s benchmark presence is minimal, with only a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. This places the Arc B390 in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it is a very low-performance part. Its nearest rivals are all legacy NVIDIA parts, such as the GeForce GT 520MX (scoring 1463, a 1.3% delta) and the GeForce GT 710 (scoring 1443, a 2.7% delta). This comparison is stark: the Arc B390 is performing at a level comparable to integrated graphics from over a decade ago. In the context of this game, the GPU’s lack of dedicated VRAM is a severe handicap. The system must constantly shuffle data between the CPU and the shared memory pool, which limits texture streaming and fill rate. The measured FPS results confirm this, as the system struggles to maintain playable frame rates even at 1080p with High settings, hitting only 33 FPS.

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

The measured FPS data reveals a clear and consistent relationship between resolution and performance, which points directly to the GPU as the bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 56 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a smooth experience. Moving to 1440p at Low settings, the frame rate drops to 45 FPS, a decline of 11 FPS from 1080p. At 4K with Low settings, the average FPS falls to 33, which is a 41% reduction from the 1080p Low result. This scaling pattern is typical of a GPU that is being overwhelmed by the increasing pixel count.

The trend is more pronounced at higher settings. At High settings, the frame rate drops from 33 FPS at 1080p to 26 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 19 FPS at 4K. The relative drop from 1080p to 4K at High settings is a 42% reduction. This consistent percentage drop across different settings suggests that the GPU’s compute and memory bandwidth are the limiting factors, not the CPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to remain relatively flat as resolution increases, because the CPU’s workload (draw calls, physics) does not scale with resolution. Instead, the frame rate drops significantly, confirming that the Arc B390’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are insufficient for the demands of higher resolutions.

The data also shows the impact of the shared memory on this scaling. At 1080p Medium, the system achieves 43 FPS, but at 4K Medium, it drops to 26 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium settings at any resolution is roughly 10-13 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is smaller, around 7 FPS. This suggests that the GPU is not only limited by resolution but also by the complexity of the rendering pipeline. The integrated nature of the Arc B390, with its system-dependent bandwidth, means that as the resolution increases, the demand on the shared memory bus grows exponentially, leading to the steep performance cliff observed in the data.

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

Based on the measured data, the only viable preset for a playable experience is Low at 1080p, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the only configuration that breaks the 50 FPS barrier. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 43 FPS, which is playable but not smooth, and the High preset drops to 33 FPS, which is borderline stuttery for a flight simulator that requires precise control. At 1440p, the Low preset provides 45 FPS, which is acceptable, but the Medium preset falls to 35 FPS. The Ultra preset is not recommended at any resolution, as it only achieves 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K.

The data indicates that the step from Low to Medium is costly, costing roughly 13 FPS at 1080p, 10 FPS at 1440p, and 7 FPS at 4K. The step from Medium to High is less costly, with a penalty of 8 FPS at 1080p, 9 FPS at 1440p, and 7 FPS at 4K. The step from High to Ultra is the smallest penalty, with a 2-3 FPS drop across all resolutions. This suggests that the visual quality gain from High to Ultra is not worth the performance loss, but the jump from Low to Medium is significant. For users who prioritize frame rate, Low is the clear choice. For those who want a better visual experience and can tolerate lower frame rates, Medium at 1080p is the highest preset that remains somewhat playable, with a 43 FPS average and a minimum of 37 FPS, which keeps it above a 30 FPS floor.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700 and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all configurations tested. The rank of 2665 is a direct reflection of the GPU’s low performance percentile (9th) compared to the CPU’s relatively higher percentile (78th). The data shows a massive imbalance: a mid-range CPU paired with a bottom-tier GPU. The combination’s average FPS across all tested settings and resolutions is heavily dragged down by the 4K results, which are consistently in the low-to-mid 20s and even down to 19 FPS.

The fact that the combo ranks so low, despite having a capable CPU, underscores the GPU bottleneck. If the game were CPU-bound, we would expect the combination to rank higher, as the Ryzen 7 5700 is a competent processor. However, the Arc B390’s inability to handle the game’s graphical load means that the system’s overall performance is constrained to the lowest common denominator. The ranking is a clear signal to users that this GPU is not suitable for Microsoft Flight Simulator at any resolution above 1080p Low, and even at that setting, the experience is marginal. The combo’s rank of 2665 is not an outlier; it is consistent with the GPU’s standing among its own peers, which are all legacy parts from over a decade ago.

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

The following table details the exact measured average FPS for each resolution and settings preset, as provided in the data.

1920x1080 (1080p)

• Low: 56 FPS (average)
• Medium: 43 FPS (average), with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS.
• High: 33 FPS (average)
• Ultra: 31 FPS (average)

2560x1440 (1440p)

• Low: 45 FPS (average)
• Medium: 35 FPS (average), with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS.
• High: 26 FPS (average)
• Ultra: 25 FPS (average)

3840x2160 (4K)

• Low: 33 FPS (average)
• Medium: 26 FPS (average), with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS.
• High: 19 FPS (average)
• Ultra: 19 FPS (average)

The data shows a stark reality for this configuration. At 1080p, the system can barely maintain a smooth 60 FPS, only achieving it at the lowest settings. Every step up in resolution or settings results in a significant performance penalty. The minimum FPS values for the Medium preset at each resolution (37 at 1080p, 30 at 1440p, and 22 at 4K) indicate that the system will experience noticeable stutters during complex scenes, such as flying over dense urban areas or during weather changes. The 4K results are effectively unplayable, with all presets averaging 33 FPS or lower. The conclusion is clear: this CPU-GPU combination is not capable of delivering a consistent, high-quality experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and users should stick to the lowest settings and resolution to achieve the best possible performance.