Microsoft Flight Simulator

# How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D paired with the Intel Arc B370 ranks 2770th out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this combo in the bottom 7.5% of all tested configurations, a striking result for a processor that otherwise performs respectably in synthetic benchmarks. The data positions this pairing firmly in the lower tier of what the database has measured for this game, suggesting that the graphics solution is the primary constraint in this pairing.

The CPU itself holds a percentile rank of 77 against all tested processors, indicating it outperforms roughly three-quarters of the CPUs in the database when measured across all benchmark types. Yet the combo's in-game rank tells a different story — the GPU's percentile rank of 5 means it outperforms only 5% of all GPUs tested. This dramatic gap between CPU capability and GPU capability creates a heavily imbalanced system, and the measured FPS data confirms that the Arc B370 is the limiting factor in nearly every scenario.

When examining the nearest rival CPUs, the Ryzen 7 5700X3D sits within a tight cluster. It trails the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D by just 0.1% in average benchmark score, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX by 0.5%. It leads the Intel Core i5-12450HX by 0.5% and the Intel Core i5-11600 by 0.6%. This level of parity means the CPU choice is not what separates this combo from better-performing systems in Microsoft Flight Simulator — the GPU is.

The GPU's nearest rivals paint an even more telling picture. The Intel Arc B370 scores 1184 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, placing it within 0.2% of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, 0.5% of the ATI Radeon HD 5770, and 0.7% of the AMD Radeon HD 7650M. These are older, lower-tier graphics solutions, and the data suggests the Arc B370 performs in that same range. For a flight simulator that demands consistent frame delivery across complex scenery, this level of GPU performance will struggle regardless of CPU headroom.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, built on Intel's 3 nm process using the Xe3-LPG architecture. The GPU features 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines, along with 10 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is rated at 48.00 GPixel/s, texture rate at 96.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance at 6.144 TFLOPS. These specifications position it as an integrated graphics solution — the bus interface is listed as IGP, and the slot width is IGP, with no power connectors required.

Memory configuration is the most unusual aspect of this GPU. The Arc B370 uses system shared memory, with memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the GPU relies on the host system's DDR4 memory rather than dedicated VRAM, which has significant implications for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams large amounts of terrain and scenery data. The memory bandwidth figure is explicitly system-dependent, so the actual performance will vary based on the CPU's memory configuration — in this case, dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s theoretical bandwidth.

The measured FPS data shows the GPU's limitations clearly. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 17. Even at High settings at this resolution, the average is only 18 FPS, while Low settings achieve 30 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS — a substantial reduction that indicates the GPU is overwhelmed by the rendering load at higher quality presets. The Medium preset at 4K shows an average of 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and maximum of 27, suggesting frame pacing is relatively consistent even when performance is low.

The GPU's 5th percentile ranking across all GPUs means this is not a case of a capable mid-range card being slightly underpowered for one game. This is a fundamental performance tier issue. Microsoft Flight Simulator's rendering requirements — dense photogrammetry, dynamic weather, and complex lighting — push the Arc B370 well beyond its comfortable operating range at higher resolutions and settings.

FAQ

Q: Why does this combo rank so low in Microsoft Flight Simulator despite the CPU's strong benchmark scores?

A: The CPU ranks in the 77th percentile of all processors, but the GPU ranks in the 5th percentile. The measured FPS data shows the GPU consistently limits performance, with the combo ranking 2770th out of 2996 tested configurations in this game.

Q: What is the fastest setting and resolution combination for this system?

A: The best measured result is 50 FPS average at 1920x1080 with Low settings. At 2560x1440 with Low settings, the average drops to 41 FPS, and at 3840x2160 with Low settings, it falls to 30 FPS.

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

A: The Arc B370 scores 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 0.2% behind the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770, 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7650M, and 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000.

Q: Does the CPU's 96 MB of shared L3 cache help in this game?

A: The CPU has 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which is substantial for a Zen 3 processor. However, benchmark results indicate the GPU becomes the limiting factor at all tested resolutions, so the cache advantage cannot translate into higher frame rates.

Q: What is the difference between the CPU's performance in direct comparison to its nearest rival?

A: The Ryzen 7 5700X3D trails the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D by 0.1% in average benchmark score and leads the Intel Core i5-12450HX by 0.5%, but these differences are negligible in real-world game performance.

Q: Is the Medium preset at 1080p a viable option for playable frame rates?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the system averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45. This is the only preset above Low that maintains an average above 30 FPS at any resolution.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces its strongest results. The Low preset delivers an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest measured average across all configurations. Medium settings reduce the average to 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 and maximum of 45. High settings further reduce performance to 30 FPS average, and Ultra drops to 28 FPS. The progression from Low to Ultra at 1080p shows a 22 FPS decline, from 50 to 28.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern continues but with lower absolute values. Low settings average 41 FPS, Medium averages 32 FPS with a range of 27 to 36, High averages 24 FPS, and Ultra averages 23 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is minimal — just 1 FPS — which suggests the GPU is hitting a performance ceiling that additional settings changes cannot overcome.

At 3840x2160, the system struggles across all presets. Low settings average 30 FPS, Medium averages 23 FPS with a range of 20 to 27, High averages 18 FPS, and Ultra averages 17 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 4K is 13 FPS, and even the fastest preset at this resolution barely reaches 30 FPS average. The minimum frame rates at Medium settings — 20 FPS at 4K, 27 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 1080p — suggest that frame drops become more pronounced as resolution increases.

The measured data includes min and max values only for the Medium preset at each resolution. This gives a useful window into frame consistency: at 1080p Medium, frames range from 33 to 45; at 1440p Medium, they range from 27 to 36; at 4K Medium, they range from 20 to 27. The spread narrows as resolution increases, but the floor drops correspondingly.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data reveals how performance degrades as resolution increases. At Low settings, the average FPS moves from 50 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p to 30 at 4K — a 40% drop from 1080p to 4K. At Medium settings, the averages are 39, 32, and 23 respectively, representing a 41% drop across the same resolution range. High settings show 30, 24, and 18 FPS, a 40% decline. Ultra settings show 28, 23, and 17 FPS, a 39% decline.

These percentages are remarkably consistent across all four presets. This uniformity suggests that resolution scaling is affecting the GPU in a predictable manner — the rendering load increases proportionally with pixel count, and the Arc B370 responds with near-linear performance degradation. The consistency also indicates that the CPU is not becoming a bottleneck at lower resolutions; if it were, the percentage drops would flatten out as the GPU became less stressed.

What this implies is that the limiting component remains the GPU across all tested configurations. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU has the most headroom to push higher frame rates, the system only reaches 50 FPS average. A more capable GPU paired with this same CPU would likely show a larger gap between 1080p and 4K performance, since the CPU could feed more frames at lower resolutions. The fact that this gap stays around 40% regardless of preset suggests the GPU is saturated at every setting level.

The data also shows that the Arc B370's system shared memory configuration may contribute to the scaling pattern. As resolution increases, the amount of data that must be pulled from system memory grows, and the 51.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR4 bandwidth becomes a shared resource between CPU and GPU. This could explain why the performance drops are so regular — memory bandwidth constraints scale directly with pixel count.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D brings 8 cores and 16 threads to this pairing, built on the Zen 3 architecture with a 7 nm process. It runs at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts to 4.10 GHz, with a TDP of 105 watts. The processor supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, and it features 96 MB of shared L3 cache — a substantial amount for a Ryzen 7 part.

Synthetic benchmarks show the CPU's capabilities. In Cinebench R23, it scores 22366 multi-core and 3157 single-core. Geekbench results show 11086 multi-core and 1849 single-core. The 3DMark tests reveal scaling from 804 single-thread to 6764 at 16 threads, with 8 threads scoring 5357. PassMark results include 26318 multi-thread and 2970 single-thread scores. These numbers place the CPU in the 77th percentile against all processors.

However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role appears secondary. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the bottleneck — performance scales consistently with resolution and settings, which is characteristic of GPU-limited workloads. The Ryzen 7 5700X3D's strong multi-threaded performance, evidenced by its 22366 Cinebench R23 multi-core score, would be well-suited to the game's complex simulation calculations, but the GPU cannot deliver enough frames to expose any CPU limitation.

The 96 MB of L3 cache is notable for gaming workloads. This is a significant amount of cache that can help with frequently accessed game data, and it likely contributes to the CPU's strong 3DMark 8-thread score of 5357. But in this specific combo, the cache advantage is overshadowed by the GPU's limitations. The nearest rival CPUs — all within 0.6% of this chip's average benchmark score — would almost certainly produce identical in-game results when paired with the same Arc B370 GPU.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for users of this combo. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 50 FPS average, which is the only configuration that approaches consistently smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at 1080p offers 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33, which remains playable but with less headroom. High and Ultra presets at 1080p drop to 30 and 28 FPS respectively, which fall below the threshold for fluid simulation.

At 2560x1440, only the Low preset maintains an average above 40 FPS at 41. Medium at 1440p averages 32 FPS, which becomes marginal for a flight simulator where smooth camera panning is essential. High and Ultra at 1440p produce averages of 24 and 23 FPS, which would result in noticeably stuttery performance. At 3840x2160, no preset reaches 30 FPS average except Low, which hits exactly 30 — and even that configuration is borderline.

The best experience per the measured rows is 1920x1080 with Low settings, providing 50 FPS average. For users who prefer Medium settings, 1080p Medium at 39 FPS average with a minimum of 33 is the strongest option that includes visual quality improvements over Low. The Medium preset's min/max data across all resolutions shows consistent frame delivery — at 1080p, the 33 FPS minimum ensures the frame rate rarely drops below playable levels.

The data does not support using High or Ultra presets at any resolution with this combo. Even at 1080p, these presets drop to 30 FPS or below, and at higher resolutions they become unusably slow. The gap between Low and Medium at 1080p is 11 FPS (50 to 39), which is a meaningful trade-off for better visuals. The gap between Medium and High is 9 FPS (39 to 30), suggesting that the visual improvements from Medium to High come at a steep performance cost. Given the GPU's 5th percentile ranking, users should expect to prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity with this hardware combination.