Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an extremely demanding title, and this specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D with the Intel Arc B390 produces results that are heavily constrained by the graphics solution. The data indicates a system that can run the simulator, but only at lower resolutions and settings, making it a niche option for users who prioritize CPU-heavy workloads over visual fidelity. This analysis breaks down the measured performance across resolutions and settings, examining what the numbers mean for the overall experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The performance of this combination is placed at rank 2665 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, indicating that while it is not the absolute worst performer, it is far from a capable configuration for this specific game. The rank reflects a fundamental imbalance; the processor is capable, but the graphics component severely limits the final output.

Benchmark results across other applications show the CPU is a strong performer, but this does not translate to high frame rates in this simulator. The GPU's benchmark percentile stands at just 9% compared to all other graphics cards, and its average benchmark score is 1482. This low percentile is a clear indicator of its limited capabilities in modern, graphically intensive titles like Microsoft Flight Simulator. The system's overall rank is a direct consequence of this bottleneck, as the CPU's potential is left untapped at higher settings.

The data shows that the combo's rank is not due to a weak processor. In synthetic tests, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D achieves a score of 14,317 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1,452 in single-core, placing it in the 80th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-10900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U, have nearly identical average scores, with deltas of only 0.1% or 0%. This confirms the CPU is a mid-to-high-tier part. The issue is that the Arc B390's performance is comparable to much older, entry-level GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 or GT 625 OEM, which are not designed for modern gaming. The result is a system that ranks poorly because the GPU cannot keep up with the demands of the flight simulator, regardless of the CPU's capabilities.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the primary limiting factor in this configuration. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture and built on a 3 nm process. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system's main RAM rather than having its own dedicated VRAM. This is a critical detail, as the bandwidth available to the GPU is "System Dependent," which is typically much slower than dedicated graphics memory and can cause performance issues in a game that streams large amounts of terrain and scenery data.

The GPU's clock speeds are listed as a base of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. While the boost clock seems respectable, the underlying hardware is limited. It has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The measured pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, with a FP32 performance of 7.680 TFLOPS. In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, these figures are simply too low to produce playable frame rates at higher resolutions and detail levels. The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1482, which sits just 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and 2.5% above the GeForce GT 625 OEM. These are legacy, low-end parts, and the comparison highlights the Arc B390's position at the very bottom of the performance spectrum.

The data shows a clear pattern: as settings increase, frame rates collapse. At 1080p, the average FPS drops from 56 at Low to 31 at Ultra. This is a direct result of the GPU being overwhelmed by the increased shading, texture, and geometric complexity. The system's reliance on shared memory further compounds the problem, as it competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth, potentially causing stutters and inconsistent frame times in a game known for its vast, open-world environments.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K provides a clear picture of where the bottleneck lies. At 1080p with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 56 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same settings, the average FPS drops to 45, a decrease of about 19.6%. At 3840x2160, the average FPS falls to 33, which is a 41% drop from the 1080p result. This scaling behavior is typical of a GPU-bound scenario; the CPU is capable of feeding frames at 1080p, but the GPU's rendering capabilities are quickly saturated as pixel count increases.

The pattern is consistent across all settings presets. For High settings, the average FPS goes from 33 at 1080p to 26 at 1440p and further down to 19 at 4K. The drop from 1080p to 4K is a substantial 42%. For Medium settings, the numbers are 43, 35, and 26 FPS respectively. The scaling indicates that the Intel Arc B390 is the limiting component at every resolution. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see a smaller difference between 1080p and 1440p, with the gap widening only at lower resolutions. Instead, the frame rate declines steadily as resolution increases, which is the classic signature of a GPU with insufficient fill rate and memory bandwidth.

This behavior suggests that even at 1080p, the GPU is working near its limit. The 56 FPS average at Low settings is achievable, but it is not a high refresh rate experience. The fact that performance degrades so significantly at higher resolutions means that users are effectively locked to 1080p for any playable session. Attempting to run the game at 1440p or 4K will result in sub-30 FPS averages, which is generally considered unplayable for a flight simulator that requires smooth camera panning and precise control inputs.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured data provides a complete picture of performance across all settings and resolutions. At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are 56 FPS on Low, 43 FPS on Medium, 33 FPS on High, and 31 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset has a recorded minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS, showing some variance but remaining within a playable range for a simulator. The Low preset’s 56 FPS average is the only result that approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience, though it is still short of that target.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops noticeably. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, Medium averages 35 FPS, High averages 26 FPS, and Ultra averages 25 FPS. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS. These numbers are marginal for a flight simulator; 35 FPS average is on the edge of smoothness and may result in a less fluid experience when flying over dense cities or during weather changes. The High and Ultra presets at this resolution are below 30 FPS, which is not recommended for a good experience.

At 3840x2160, the results are the weakest. The Low preset averages 33 FPS, Medium averages 26 FPS, High averages 19 FPS, and Ultra averages 19 FPS. The Medium preset has a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS. These are all well below the threshold for comfortable play. Even the Low preset at 4K cannot maintain a stable 30 FPS, making this resolution effectively unusable with this hardware combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The data shows a clear hierarchy: 1080p Low is the only configuration that provides a consistently playable experience, with an average FPS of 56. The step from Low to Medium at 1080p costs 13 FPS on average, which is a significant hit. The step from Medium to High costs another 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra costs only 2 FPS, suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional visual effects are not as demanding as the jump from Low to Medium. However, all presets at 1440p and 4K are either borderline or unplayable.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal configuration for this combo is 1920x1080 with the Low settings preset. This is the only combination that yields an average frame rate above 50 FPS, at 56 FPS. This provides a reasonably smooth experience for a flight simulator, where precise control and smooth visual panning are important. While the Low preset will reduce visual fidelity, it is the only way to achieve a frame rate that is consistently playable without significant stuttering.

The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 43 FPS and a minimum of 37 FPS, is a viable alternative for users who want better visual quality. The 43 FPS average is acceptable for this genre, as flight simulators do not require the same high frame rates as fast-paced shooters. The minimum of 37 FPS indicates that the game will not drop to unplayable levels during most scenes. This preset offers a balance between visual fidelity and performance, and it is the recommended choice for users who prioritize graphics over the highest possible frame rate.

The High and Ultra presets at 1080p are not recommended. The High preset’s 33 FPS average and Ultra’s 31 FPS average are below the threshold for a smooth experience, and the performance gain from High to Ultra is negligible (2 FPS) while likely adding visual stress. At 1440p and 4K, none of the presets are recommended, as even the Low preset at 1440p (45 FPS) is only playable for less demanding scenarios, and the 4K results are all below 34 FPS. For a consistent experience, users should stick to 1080p and choose between Low for maximum smoothness or Medium for a better visual balance. The data clearly shows that this system is not suited for high-resolution or high-detail flight simulation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a high-performance processor that is, in many ways, wasted in this configuration. It is an 8-core, 16-thread CPU based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. It features a large 96 MB shared L3 cache, which is highly beneficial in games that are sensitive to memory latency. Its benchmark scores are strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14,317 and a single-core score of 1,452. The CPU’s percentile ranking against all other CPUs is 80%, and its average benchmark score of 27,896 is nearly identical to rivals like the Intel Core i9-10900K and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800U, with delta percentages of 0.1% or less.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the complex simulation logic, including flight physics, weather systems, and AI traffic. The Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for this task, and its high single-thread performance ensures that the main game loop can run efficiently. The 96 MB L3 cache is particularly useful for this game, as it can hold more of the frequently accessed terrain and object data, reducing the need to fetch data from slower system memory.

However, the measured frame rates do not reflect the CPU’s capability. The fact that FPS scales down almost linearly with resolution indicates that the GPU is the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the CPU is likely able to feed frames to the GPU faster than the GPU can render them, resulting in a 56 FPS average. But at higher resolutions, the GPU’s rendering time increases, and the CPU is forced to wait. This means that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D’s potential is not being utilized. The data shows the CPU is not the bottleneck; it is the Arc B390 that holds the system back.

The CPU’s specifications, including its support for DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 4, are all robust. Its TDP of 105 W is manageable. The problem is that this CPU deserves a much more powerful discrete GPU to pair with it. In this combo, the integrated graphics of the Arc B390 are simply not in the same league as the CPU. The result is a system that performs at the level of its weakest component, and in Microsoft Flight Simulator, that component is the graphics solution. The CPU is ready for higher workloads, but it is being starved by the GPU, leading to the low overall rank of 2665 out of 2996 combos.