Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X with the Intel Arc B390 produces a set of benchmark results that clearly illustrate the boundaries of this particular hardware pairing. With measured frame rates ranging from a low of 19 FPS at 4K Ultra to a high of 56 FPS at 1080p Low, the data paints a picture of a system that is consistently constrained by its graphics solution, yet still capable of delivering playable sessions under specific, carefully chosen settings. This analysis breaks down the measured FPS data to understand the scaling behavior, the role of each component, and where this combo stands among the thousands of tested configurations.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a pronounced and consistent penalty as resolution increases, which is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound workload. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 56 FPS. Moving to 1440p at the same Low settings drops the average to 45 FPS, a reduction of 11 FPS. The step to 4K at Low settings further reduces the average to 33 FPS. This pattern is not linear, but the relative drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial, representing a 41% decrease in average frame rate at the Low preset. This steep decline is a clear sign that the Intel Arc B390’s rendering capabilities are the primary limiting factor as pixel count grows.

The scaling behavior becomes even more telling when examining the High and Ultra presets. At 1080p High, the average is 33 FPS, which falls to 26 FPS at 1440p High, and then plummets to 19 FPS at 4K High. The Ultra preset follows an almost identical trajectory, starting at 31 FPS at 1080p, dropping to 25 FPS at 1440p, and hitting 19 FPS at 4K. The fact that both High and Ultra converge to the same 19 FPS at 4K suggests that the GPU is hitting a hard computational wall, unable to differentiate between these two demanding presets at that resolution. The data shows that the gap between 1080p and 1440p is significant, but the gap between 1440p and 4K is even more punishing, effectively halving the already limited headroom.

For a flight simulator like this, which is known for rendering vast landscapes and complex scenery, the resolution scaling results indicate that 1080p is the only viable target for consistent performance above 30 FPS. The jump to 1440p cuts performance by roughly 20% on average across all settings, and the jump to 4K cuts it by another 30% or more. This is not a system designed for high-resolution immersion; instead, the data suggests that users will need to prioritize resolution or graphical fidelity, as they cannot have both. The 1080p Medium result of 43 FPS, compared to the 1080p Low result of 56 FPS, shows that even at the same resolution, the settings have a massive impact, further confirming that the GPU is the bottleneck.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this hardware combination are highly dependent on the user's target resolution and acceptable frame rate floor. For a playable experience, the data suggests that 1080p is the practical limit. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo averages 56 FPS, which is the only preset and resolution combination that approaches smooth, fluid motion. This is the clear recommendation for users who prioritize frame rate above all else. However, the step up to Medium at 1080p yields an average of 43 FPS, with measured minimums of 37 FPS and maximums of 50 FPS. This is a more balanced choice, offering a significant visual upgrade over Low while maintaining an average frame rate that is still above 40 FPS, though it may dip in dense areas.

The High preset at 1080p produces an average of 33 FPS. This is a playable, albeit less fluid, experience. For a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, where the pace is slower and precision is more important than twitch reflexes, 33 FPS can be acceptable, especially when cruising at altitude. The Ultra preset at 1080p offers a marginal improvement in average FPS over High, reaching 31 FPS, but the data shows this comes at the cost of stability, as the minimum FPS is not recorded. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset provides very little tangible benefit for the performance hit. Therefore, High is the smarter choice over Ultra at 1080p.

Looking at higher resolutions, the data shows that 1440p is only viable on Low settings, where it averages 45 FPS. This is a playable frame rate, but it requires sacrificing nearly all visual fidelity. The 1440p Medium preset drops to 35 FPS, which may be tolerable for some, but the 1440p High and Ultra presets, at 26 and 25 FPS respectively, fall below the threshold for a smooth experience. At 4K, all presets are below 33 FPS, with High and Ultra both stuck at 19 FPS. The data indicates that 4K is not a practical option for this combo. The best experience per the measured rows is undoubtedly 1080p Medium, which offers a solid balance of visual quality and performance, with an average of 43 FPS and a recorded minimum of 37 FPS. For those who demand the highest frame rates, 1080p Low is the only choice.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its benchmark scores are respectable, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13184 and a single-core score of 1499. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle game logic, physics, and the complex simulation of the world, while the GPU renders the visuals. The measured FPS data, however, suggests that the CPU is not the primary bottleneck in this configuration.

The evidence for this lies in the resolution scaling. If the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect to see similar frame rates across different resolutions, as the CPU workload would remain constant. Instead, the data shows a massive drop in performance from 1080p to 4K. For example, at Low settings, the average FPS goes from 56 at 1080p to 33 at 4K. This is a classic sign of a GPU-limited scenario. The CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with data, but the Intel Arc B390 cannot keep up with the increased pixel rendering demands at higher resolutions.

The Ryzen 7 5700X's performance relative to its peers further supports this conclusion. According to its benchmark data, it has an average benchmark score of 27578, which places it in the 79th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12600K with a matching score of 27578 and a deltaPct of 0, and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X with a score of 27636 and a deltaPct of -0.2. This indicates that the 5700X is a very capable mid-range processor. In a less GPU-bound game, this CPU could easily push much higher frame rates. However, in this specific pairing, the GPU's performance ceiling is so low that the CPU's potential is left untapped.

The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and support for dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s are sufficient for this game. The 8 cores and 16 threads are more than adequate for the simulation's multithreaded workloads. The data shows that the combo ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combinations, which is in the bottom 11% of all combos. This low ranking is not a reflection of the CPU's inadequacy, but rather the severe imbalance created by pairing a strong mid-range CPU with an entry-level integrated GPU. The CPU is waiting for the GPU, and the GPU is overwhelmed.

How This Combo Ranks

The measured data places this combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 5700X and Intel Arc B390 at rank 2665 out of 2996 tested combos in this game. This is a percentile ranking of approximately the 11th percentile, meaning that 89% of all tested combinations perform better. This is a stark indicator of the overall performance level of this pairing. The rank is not a measure of absolute failure, but it does place this system firmly in the lower echelon of tested hardware for this specific title.

The low rank is almost entirely attributable to the graphics card. The Intel Arc B390's benchmark data shows it has an average 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482, which places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with a score of 1463 and a deltaPct of 1.3, and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M with a score of 1460 and a deltaPct of 1.5. These are incredibly old and low-powered graphics solutions. The Arc B390 is essentially competing with integrated graphics from a decade ago, which is a clear indication of its performance class.

When we compare the CPU's ranking to the combo's ranking, the discrepancy is obvious. The CPU is in the 79th percentile of all CPUs, while the combo is in the 11th percentile of all combos. This massive gap confirms that the GPU is dragging the entire system down. The CPU is doing its job, but the GPU is a severe limiting factor. The data shows that the combo's performance is directly correlated with the GPU's weak benchmark scores. If the CPU were paired with a stronger GPU, the combo rank would be significantly higher. As it stands, this ranking is a warning to users that this combination is not suitable for demanding games like Microsoft Flight Simulator at higher settings or resolutions.

The deltaPct values for the GPU's nearest rivals highlight the narrow performance band in which the Arc B390 operates. It is only 1.3% faster than the GT 520MX and 2.7% faster than the GT 625 OEM. These are all sub-20 FPS class GPUs in modern titles. The combo rank of 2665 out of 2996 is consistent with this level of GPU performance. It is a system that can run the game, but only at the lowest settings and resolutions, and it will struggle to maintain playable frame rates in demanding scenarios. The data is clear: this is a bottom-tier configuration for this game.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the dominant factor in this system's performance, and its specifications explain why. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its base clock is 300 MHz, which boosts to 2500 MHz. Crucially, its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system's main DDR4 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. Its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which is a major bottleneck for a game that streams vast amounts of terrain data.

The GPU's benchmark scores are extremely low. Its only recorded benchmark, 3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12, yields a score of 1482. This places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, as mentioned earlier. The pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, but these figures are theoretical and do not translate into real-world performance in a game like this. The FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS is also modest. These numbers, combined with the shared memory architecture, explain why the GPU struggles so significantly at higher resolutions.

The measured FPS data directly reflects the GPU's limitations. At 1080p Low, the GPU manages 56 FPS, which is its best result. But as the resolution increases, the GPU's fill rate and memory bandwidth become insufficient. The drop from 56 FPS at 1080p Low to 33 FPS at 4K Low is a 41% reduction, which is a massive hit. The fact that High and Ultra both hit 19 FPS at 4K shows that the GPU is completely saturated and cannot handle the additional shading and texture work required by those presets. The shared memory architecture is particularly problematic, as the GPU has to compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which causes stutters and frame drops in complex scenes.

In comparison to its rivals, the Arc B390 is only slightly faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, which is a GPU from 2011. This puts its performance into perspective. It is not a gaming GPU by any modern standard. The data shows that the GPU is the definitive bottleneck, and any attempt to improve performance in this game would require a replacement of this component. The system’s frame rates are a direct result of the GPU's low compute power and its reliance on system memory.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is a detailed breakdown of the measured average FPS for each resolution and settings preset, based on the provided data.

1080p (1920x1080):

• Low: 56 FPS average. This is the highest frame rate achieved by this combo, and it is the only setting that provides a consistently smooth experience.
• Medium: 43 FPS average, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. This is a significant drop from Low but still playable, with the minimum FPS staying above 30.
• High: 33 FPS average. This is a noticeable step down from Medium, and while it may be playable for a slower-paced sim, it is on the edge of smoothness.
• Ultra: 31 FPS average. This is only 2 FPS lower than High, indicating that the Ultra preset offers minimal visual benefit for the performance cost at this resolution.

1440p (2560x1440):

• Low: 45 FPS average. This is the only playable preset at this resolution, offering a 20% reduction from the 1080p Low result.
• Medium: 35 FPS average, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. The minimum FPS is right at the edge of playability, and the average is below 40.
• High: 26 FPS average. This is a substantial drop and is not recommended for a smooth experience.
• Ultra: 25 FPS average. This is nearly identical to High, showing that the GPU is severely constrained.

4K (3840x2160):

• Low: 33 FPS average. This is a 41% drop from 1080p Low, and the frame rate is below the threshold for smooth motion.
• Medium: 26 FPS average, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. This is a stuttery experience with frequent dips into the low 20s.
• High: 19 FPS average. This is a slideshow, and the game is effectively unplayable at this setting.
• Ultra: 19 FPS average. This matches the High preset, confirming that the GPU has hit a hard performance wall at 4K.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the only combination that breaks 50 FPS, and 1080p Medium is the only other setting that maintains an average above 40 FPS. Every other combination falls below 45 FPS, with 4K High and Ultra being the lowest at 19 FPS. The minimum FPS values, when recorded, show that the Medium presets at 1080p and 1440p have minimums of 37 and 30 FPS respectively, which are just above the 30 FPS baseline for playability. This breakdown provides a definitive guide for users: for the best experience, stick to 1080p and choose between Low and Medium, depending on whether frame rate or visual quality is the higher priority.