Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X paired with the Intel Arc B390 in Microsoft Flight Simulator delivers playable frame rates only at lower settings and resolutions, with the GPU acting as the definitive bottleneck across all measured configurations. The combo ranks 2665th out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 11% of all systems, a position driven almost entirely by the Arc B390’s graphics performance, which sits at the 9th percentile among all GPUs. The Ryzen 7 7700X, by contrast, is a high-end 8-core, 16-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, with a base clock of 4.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, and its synthetic benchmark scores place it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The data shows a stark imbalance: a top-tier CPU paired with an entry-level integrated GPU, resulting in a system where the graphics solution cannot translate the processor’s capability into high frame rates in this flight simulator.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 7700X contributes a substantial amount of raw processing power, but in this specific pairing, its influence on measured FPS is largely masked by the graphics card. The processor features 8 cores and 16 threads, built on the 5 nm TSMC process with a 105 W TDP, and supports DDR5 memory via a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. These specifications are relevant because Microsoft Flight Simulator is known to be CPU-intensive, particularly for simulation logic, physics, and draw call preparation, and the 7700X’s multi-threaded capabilities should handle those workloads effectively.

Benchmark results support this assessment. In Cinebench R23, the 7700X scores 19088 in multicore and 1987 in single-core. In Geekbench, it records 12451 multicore and 2289 single-core. The 3DMark tests show scaling from 2112 with 2 threads to 8859 with 16 threads and 8852 with max threads, indicating strong thread scaling. PassMark multithread score is 35686, with single-thread at 4190. These scores place the CPU at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35909. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 with an average score of 35802 (0.3% behind), the Intel Core 7 250H at 35728 (0.5% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 at 35719 (0.5% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H at 35670 (0.7% behind). The 7700X leads all of them by a small margin, demonstrating that it is a top-tier processor.

However, in the measured FPS data, the CPU’s dominance never translates to high frame rates. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 56 FPS, which is the highest recorded average across all settings and resolutions. At 1080p Medium, it drops to 43 FPS, at High to 33 FPS, and at Ultra to 31 FPS. The pattern across resolutions shows that even at the lowest settings, the system cannot exceed 56 FPS, which is far below what the CPU alone could deliver in a less GPU-limited scenario. The data indicates that the CPU’s 8 cores and 16 threads are more than sufficient for the game’s simulation demands; the limiting factor is elsewhere. The Ryzen 7 7700X’s single-thread performance, as evidenced by the 1987 Cinebench R23 single-core score and 4190 PassMark single-thread score, is also strong, which matters for games that rely heavily on a single main thread. Yet, the FPS ceiling remains low, confirming that the CPU is not the constraining component in this combination.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is the clear performance limiter in this system. This GPU is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with a 3 nm process from Intel, and it operates as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Critically, its memory is listed as "System Shared," meaning it uses the system’s DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM, and its memory bandwidth is "System Dependent." This is a fundamental constraint for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which loads vast amounts of terrain, aircraft models, and textures. The GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its compute capabilities are rated at 7.680 TFLOPS for FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS for FP16, with a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. The TDP is 80 W, and it has no power connectors, further confirming its integrated nature.

The Arc B390’s benchmark presence is minimal, with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482. This places it at the 9th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1482. Its nearest rivals are all older, low-end NVIDIA parts: the GeForce GT 520MX with a score of 1463 (1.3% behind), the GeForce 800M at 1460 (1.5% behind), the GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1446 (2.5% behind), and the GeForce GT 710 at 1443 (2.7% behind). The Arc B390 leads these by a small margin, but they are all entry-level or legacy GPUs, which contextualizes the performance level. In a modern, demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator, a GPU in this percentile range will struggle.

The measured FPS data confirms this. At 4K Ultra, the combo averages 19 FPS, which is unplayable by any standard. At 4K High, it also averages 19 FPS, while 4K Medium averages 26 FPS (with min 22 and max 30), and 4K Low averages 33 FPS. The GPU’s lack of dedicated VRAM means that at higher resolutions and settings, the system must allocate more system memory for graphics data, which increases latency and reduces throughput, but even at 1080p Low, the FPS only reaches 56. This suggests that the GPU’s raw shading and texturing throughput, despite the 1536 shading units, is insufficient for the game’s rendering demands. The 12 ray tracing cores are present, but enabling ray tracing would likely crush performance further, though no such settings were measured. The data shows a GPU that is simply out of its depth for this title, regardless of the CPU’s strength.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the only settings that provide a playable experience are at the Low preset, and even then, only at 1080p and 1440p. At 1080p Low, the combo averages 56 FPS, which is above the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered the minimum for acceptable playability, though it is not a smooth 60 FPS experience. At 1440p Low, the average drops to 45 FPS, which is still playable but with noticeable dips. At 4K Low, the average falls to 33 FPS, which is borderline. The Medium preset offers a trade-off: at 1080p Medium, the average is 43 FPS (min 37, max 50), which is playable but with less headroom; at 1440p Medium, it averages 35 FPS (min 30, max 40), which is on the edge of playability; at 4K Medium, it averages 26 FPS (min 22, max 30), which is not smooth. The High and Ultra presets are not recommended at any resolution, as they all fall below 33 FPS, with 4K High and Ultra both at 19 FPS, 1440p High at 26 FPS, 1440p Ultra at 25 FPS, 1080p High at 33 FPS, and 1080p Ultra at 31 FPS.

The data suggests that the best experience, in terms of balancing visual quality and frame rate, is 1080p Medium, which delivers an average of 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS, ensuring that even in demanding scenes, the frame rate does not drop below the playable threshold. This is superior to 1080p Low in visual fidelity while still maintaining a playable average. However, if the priority is maximizing smoothness, then 1080p Low at 56 FPS is the clear choice, as it provides the highest average frame rate of any measured configuration. At 1440p, the Low preset at 45 FPS is the only viable option for a playable experience, while 1440p Medium at 35 FPS is risky due to its 30 FPS minimum. For 4K, none of the presets provide a consistently playable experience, with even the Low preset at 33 FPS being marginal, and the Medium preset at 26 FPS being too low for comfortable play. The measured rows indicate that users should stick to 1080p for any reasonable playability, and within that, choose either Low for maximum FPS or Medium for a better visual experience at a modest FPS cost.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665th out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all systems, a ranking that is heavily influenced by the GPU’s low percentile standing. The CPU’s 85th percentile performance is effectively neutralized by the GPU’s 9th percentile performance, resulting in a combo that is far below average for this game. The data shows that the vast majority of other tested combos achieve higher frame rates, likely because they pair more capable GPUs with comparable or even weaker CPUs. The ranking also reflects the fact that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title that scales significantly with GPU capability, and the Arc B390’s integrated nature is not suited for it.

When interpreting the combo rank, it is important to note that the CPU is not the issue. The Ryzen 7 7700X’s nearest rivals, all within 0.7% of its average benchmark score, would likely perform similarly if paired with this GPU, because the bottleneck is so severe. The 2665th rank out of 2996 means that 331 tested combos performed worse, but the vast majority of systems (2665) outperformed this one. The data indicates that this combo is suitable only for very light gaming or non-gaming tasks, not for a graphics-intensive flight simulator. A user with this CPU would see a massive improvement in this game by upgrading the GPU to any modern dedicated graphics card, but the data cannot speculate on specific alternatives. The measured FPS numbers, with a peak of 56 FPS at 1080p Low, confirm the low rank, as most combos in the database would exceed that at higher settings and resolutions.

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

The FPS drop from 1080p to 4K is significant across all settings, but the pattern reveals that the GPU is the limiting component. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 56 at 1080p to 45 at 1440p (a 19.6% drop) and then to 33 at 4K (a 41.1% drop from 1080p). At Medium settings, the average goes from 43 at 1080p to 35 at 1440p (a 18.6% drop) and to 26 at 4K (a 39.5% drop from 1080p). At High settings, the average goes from 33 at 1080p to 26 at 1440p (a 21.2% drop) and to 19 at 4K (a 42.4% drop). At Ultra settings, the average goes from 31 at 1080p to 25 at 1440p (a 19.4% drop) and to 19 at 4K (a 38.7% drop). The consistent pattern of roughly a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a further 20% drop from 1440p to 4K indicates that the GPU is being saturated by the increasing pixel count.

If the CPU were the limiting factor, the FPS would remain relatively stable across resolutions, because the CPU’s load (simulation logic, draw calls) does not increase proportionally with resolution. Instead, we see FPS dropping by nearly half from 1080p to 4K, which is a classic sign of GPU limitation. The Arc B390’s system-shared memory also plays a role; at 4K, the GPU requires more memory bandwidth, and because it shares system memory, the bandwidth is dependent on the CPU’s memory controller, which further constrains performance. The data shows that the FPS at 4K Low (33 FPS) is lower than the FPS at 1080p Ultra (31 FPS), which suggests that resolution scaling has a more significant impact than settings scaling, again pointing to the GPU as the bottleneck. The CPU’s strong multi-threaded performance, as shown by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 19088, would allow it to handle the game’s CPU demands at any resolution, but the GPU cannot keep up with the rendering load as the resolution increases. Therefore, the resolution scaling data confirms that the Intel Arc B390 is the sole limiting component in this combo.

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

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of the combo’s performance across all tested configurations.

1920x1080: At Low settings, the average FPS is 56, with no minimum or maximum recorded. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 43, with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 50. At High settings, the average FPS is 33, with no minimum or maximum recorded. At Ultra settings, the average FPS is 31, with no minimum or maximum recorded. This resolution offers the best performance, with Low being the only preset to exceed 50 FPS, and Medium being the only other preset to stay above 40 FPS. High and Ultra both fall below 35 FPS, indicating a significant drop in playability when moving beyond Medium.

2560x1440: At Low settings, the average FPS is 45, with no minimum or maximum recorded. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 35, with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40. At High settings, the average FPS is 26, with no minimum or maximum recorded. At Ultra settings, the average FPS is 25, with no minimum or maximum recorded. The drop from 1080p is evident, with Low losing 11 FPS, Medium losing 8 FPS, High losing 7 FPS, and Ultra losing 6 FPS. At this resolution, only Low provides a comfortable margin above 30 FPS, while Medium is borderline, and High and Ultra are not playable for a smooth experience.

3840x2160: At Low settings, the average FPS is 33, with no minimum or maximum recorded. At Medium settings, the average FPS is 26, with a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 30. At High settings, the average FPS is 19, with no minimum or maximum recorded. At Ultra settings, the average FPS is 19, with no minimum or maximum recorded. This resolution is largely unplayable, as even Low settings only reach 33 FPS, which is on the edge of playability, and Medium drops to 26 FPS. High and Ultra are both at 19 FPS, which is a slideshow. The data shows that the combo cannot handle 4K in this game under any settings, reinforcing the GPU bottleneck.

Overall, the measured FPS breakdown shows a system that is capable of 1080p gaming at Low to Medium settings, with 1440p limited to Low settings, and 4K not viable at any settings. The highest FPS recorded is 56 at 1080p Low, and the lowest is 19 at 4K High and 4K Ultra. The minimum FPS values, where recorded, are 37 at 1080p Medium, 30 at 1440p Medium, and 22 at 4K Medium, indicating that even the playable presets have dips that could cause stuttering in complex scenes. The data is consistent with a GPU that has 9th percentile performance, and the CPU’s 85th percentile performance does not compensate for this limitation. This combo is best suited for users who prioritize CPU-intensive tasks over gaming, as the gaming performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator is severely constrained.