Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is a uniquely demanding title that stresses both the CPU and GPU heavily, and the measured results for the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X paired with the Intel Arc B390 paint a clear picture of a system that is severely limited by its graphics component. The data shows a consistent pattern across all resolutions and settings, where the Arc B390, which ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, struggles to maintain playable frame rates, while the Ryzen 7 5800X, ranking in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, has ample headroom to spare. The benchmark results indicate that this combination is fundamentally unbalanced for this simulation, with the GPU acting as a hard bottleneck at every turn.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data suggests that the only viable path to a playable experience is to prioritize the Low settings preset, and even then, only at lower resolutions. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combination achieves an average of 56 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that crosses the 60 FPS threshold closely enough to be considered somewhat smooth. This is a significant drop from the Medium preset at the same resolution, which yields 43 FPS, and a further decline to 33 FPS on High and 31 FPS on Ultra. The data clearly indicates a linear relationship between visual fidelity and performance, but the starting point is so low that any increase in settings comes at a steep cost.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset is the only one that remains above the 30 FPS mark, delivering an average of 45 FPS. Moving up to Medium drops the average to 35 FPS, which is playable but with noticeable stutter, while High and Ultra fall to 26 and 25 FPS respectively, making the game feel sluggish and unresponsive. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset struggles, producing an average of only 33 FPS, and the Medium preset dips to 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 FPS, indicating significant frame pacing issues. The High and Ultra presets at 4K are essentially unplayable, with averages of 19 FPS.

For the best experience per the measured rows, the recommendation is unequivocal: use the Low preset. The data shows that the performance headroom is simply not there for higher settings on this GPU. While 1080p Low is the only configuration that approaches a comfortable frame rate, users on 1440p displays will have to settle for a 45 FPS average on Low, which is the maximum achievable. The data implies that any attempt to increase visual quality will result in a disproportionate loss of performance, making the Low preset the only sensible choice for this specific hardware combination.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate this combination can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset. This is the only measured configuration that comes close to a standard 60 FPS target, and it is a full 23% higher than the next best result of 45 FPS at 2560x1440 on Low.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X or the Intel Arc B390 the limiting factor in this game?

A: The data strongly indicates the Intel Arc B390 is the primary bottleneck. The GPU ranks in the 9th percentile of all GPUs and has an average benchmark score of 1482, while its nearest rivals are all low-end NVIDIA models. In contrast, the CPU has a high benchmark score of 29123 and a percentile rank of 81, suggesting it has far more performance headroom than the GPU can utilize.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its closest rivals in terms of raw performance?

A: According to the benchmark data, the Arc B390 is only marginally faster than its nearest competitors. It is 1.3% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and 1.5% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M. It also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM by 2.5% and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 by 2.7%. These are very tight margins, indicating the B390 is in the same performance tier as these older, entry-level parts.

Q: Does the CPU's multi-threading capability provide any benefit in this game's benchmark results?

A: The CPU's strong multi-threaded scores, such as a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15476 and a Passmark multithread score of 27732, suggest it is more than capable of handling the simulation's complex calculations. However, the measured FPS results are consistently low across all settings, which implies that the CPU's power is not being fully exercised due to the GPU's inability to render frames fast enough.

Q: What is the performance difference between the Low and Ultra presets at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the difference is substantial. The Low preset achieves an average of 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset only manages 31 FPS. This represents a significant 25 FPS drop, or roughly a 45% reduction in performance, when moving from the lowest to the highest visual quality settings.

Q: Is the Intel Arc B390's memory configuration a potential cause for concern?

A: Yes, the GPU's memory is listed as "System Shared," with a bandwidth that is "System Dependent." This means it relies on the system's main memory rather than having its own dedicated VRAM. Given that the CPU supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, the shared memory setup is likely a contributing factor to the low performance, as it can create a bottleneck when the GPU needs to access large amounts of texture data.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is unequivocally the dominant factor in this system's performance, and the data shows it is a severe limitation. The GPU's benchmark scores are incredibly low, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This score is only marginally higher than its nearest rivals, which include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and the NVIDIA GeForce 800M, both of which are legacy, low-end parts. The Arc B390's architecture, Xe3-LPG, and its 3 nm process node are modern, but the raw performance metrics are not.

The GPU's clock speeds are listed as a 300 MHz base and a 2500 MHz boost, which on the surface seem adequate. However, the critical weakness lies in its memory configuration. With "System Shared" memory and "System Dependent" bandwidth, the GPU is forced to share the system's DDR4 memory bus. This is a major handicap in a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for streaming large amounts of terrain and texture data. The lack of dedicated VRAM likely contributes to the poor frame rates, as the GPU must constantly contend with the CPU for memory access.

The measured FPS data confirms this analysis. At 4K with High settings, the average FPS is 19, which is identical to the Ultra preset. This suggests that the GPU is not being limited by the complexity of the shaders, but rather by its fundamental throughput and memory bandwidth. The data implies that the Arc B390, despite its modern architecture, is simply not capable of handling the demands of this simulation at any reasonable quality setting. Its performance is more in line with an entry-level integrated solution than a dedicated discrete graphics card, and it is the primary reason why this combo ranks so poorly.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall ranking for this specific combination of AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and Intel Arc B390 in Microsoft Flight Simulator is 2665 out of a total of 2996 tested combos. This places it in the bottom 11% of all possible configurations, which is a very poor result. The ranking is a direct consequence of the GPU's abysmal performance, which drags down the otherwise capable CPU. The data suggests that this pairing is not a sensible one for this game, as the GPU is unable to leverage the CPU's strengths.

To put this in perspective, the CPU alone ranks in the 81st percentile of all CPUs, indicating it is a solid, upper-mid-range processor. However, the GPU's 9th percentile ranking completely negates this advantage. The combo's rank of 2665 is a clear indicator that the system is not balanced for the task. The benchmark results imply that if a user were to pair this CPU with a more powerful GPU, the overall ranking would improve dramatically, as the CPU would no longer be held back by the graphics bottleneck.

The data shows that the system is not just underperforming; it is severely underperforming. With a rank of 2665 out of 2996, it is closer to the bottom of the list than the middle. This suggests that almost any other GPU combination would likely yield better results. The conclusion is that this specific pairing represents a significant mismatch, and the overall ranking is a direct reflection of the GPU's inability to keep pace with the CPU's potential.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS data shows a predictable, but steep, decline as resolution increases from 1080p to 4K. At 1080p with Low settings, the average FPS is 56. This drops to 45 FPS at 1440p, a decrease of 11 FPS. Moving to 4K, the average further drops to 33 FPS, an additional 12 FPS loss. This pattern of roughly a 20% loss in performance for each step up in resolution is consistent across all settings presets, indicating that the GPU is the primary limiting factor.

This scaling behavior is classic evidence of a GPU bottleneck. The workload on the GPU increases exponentially with the number of pixels, and the Arc B390 is clearly struggling to keep up. The fact that the frame rate drops so consistently with resolution, even at the Low preset, shows that the GPU is being pushed to its absolute limit regardless of the visual complexity. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect the frame rate to be more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU's workload does not scale as dramatically with pixel count.

The data also shows that the gap between the Low and Ultra presets remains relatively constant across resolutions. At 1080p, the difference is 25 FPS (56 vs 31). At 1440p, it is 20 FPS (45 vs 25). At 4K, it is 14 FPS (33 vs 19). This suggests that the GPU's performance ceiling is being hit regardless of the settings, and that reducing the resolution is the only effective way to improve performance. The results imply that the GPU is so weak that it cannot handle the pixel throughput required for higher resolutions, making 1080p the only practical target for this system.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the data shows a clear hierarchy of settings. The Low preset achieves an average of 56 FPS, which is the highest score in the entire dataset. The Medium preset drops to 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. The High preset yields 33 FPS, and the Ultra preset falls to 31 FPS. The step from Low to Medium is the most significant, representing a 13 FPS loss, while the steps from Medium to High and High to Ultra are smaller, at 10 and 2 FPS respectively.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops across the board. The Low preset is again the best, with an average of 45 FPS. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. The High preset produces 26 FPS, and the Ultra preset produces 25 FPS. The pattern is similar to 1080p, but the starting point is lower, and the absolute differences between settings are slightly smaller. The data indicates that 1440p is a challenging resolution for this GPU, with only the Low preset providing a somewhat stable experience.

At 3840x2160, the performance is critically low. The Low preset is the only one that breaks the 30 FPS barrier, with an average of 33 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. The High and Ultra presets both tie at 19 FPS, showing that there is no benefit to lowering settings from High to Ultra at this resolution. The data suggests that 4K is simply not a viable option for this hardware, as even the lowest settings result in a choppy, sub-30 FPS experience.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X is a powerful processor that is clearly not the source of the performance problems in this benchmark. With 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, it has a strong multi-threaded capability, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 15476 and its Passmark multithread score of 27732. Its single-thread performance is also solid, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1574.5. This is important for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known to be heavily dependent on single-core performance for its main simulation loop.

The CPU's high percentile rank of 81 compared to all other CPUs indicates that it is a very capable part. Its nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the Intel Core Ultra 5 135H and the Intel Core i5-13500HX, with a deltaPct of 0.1% and -0.5% respectively. This puts it in direct competition with modern laptop and desktop processors, showing that it is not a performance weak link. The CPU's 32 MB of L3 cache also helps with the large data sets involved in flight simulation.

However, the measured FPS data shows that this CPU's power is essentially being wasted. The highest average FPS of 56 at 1080p Low is a result that does not reflect the CPU's capabilities. The data implies that the CPU is sitting idle for significant portions of its time, waiting for the GPU to finish rendering each frame. The 5800X is more than capable of feeding frames to a much more powerful GPU, but the Arc B390 is unable to keep up, making the CPU a silent partner in this underperforming duo.