Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D paired with the Intel Arc B390 presents a starkly lopsided combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The data shows a system where a top-tier 3D V-Cache processor is thoroughly bottlenecked by an integrated-class GPU, resulting in frame rates that are only playable at the lowest settings. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, the roles of each component, and how this specific pairing ranks against others.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator is severe, indicating that the Intel Arc B390 is the primary limiting factor at every resolution. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 56 FPS. Stepping up to 1440p Low drops the average to 45 FPS, a 19.6% reduction. Pushing to 4K Low yields an average of 33 FPS, a further 26.7% drop from 1440p. This scaling pattern shows that while the GPU is struggling, it is not entirely overwhelmed until the highest resolutions.

The situation becomes more critical at higher graphical presets. At High settings, the average frame rate falls from 33 FPS at 1080p to 26 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 19 FPS at 4K. This represents a 42.4% total performance loss from 1080p to 4K. The Ultra preset tells a similar story, with averages of 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. The fact that 4K High and 4K Ultra both plateau at 19 FPS suggests the GPU has hit a hard computational ceiling, regardless of the specific workload. The scaling from 1080p to 4K is not linear; it is a steep curve that flattens out at the bottom, confirming the Arc B390 cannot sustain playable performance at higher resolutions.

The 1080p to 1440p transition shows the most significant per-step degradation for the Low preset. However, for the Medium preset, the drop from 43 FPS at 1080p to 35 FPS at 1440p is a 18.6% decrease. The subsequent drop to 26 FPS at 4K Medium is a further 25.7% decline. These numbers indicate that while the CPU has ample headroom, the GPU's rendering pipeline is saturated. The limiting component is unequivocally the graphics processor, as the frame rate is directly tied to the pixel count and the complexity of the graphical preset.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the decisive factor in this system's performance. Its benchmark results are exceptionally low, with an average score of 1482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad. This places it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it performs worse than 91% of the graphics cards in the database. The nearest rivals for the Arc B390 are legacy NVIDIA parts like the GeForce GT 520MX, which it edges out by 1.3%, and the GeForce 800M, which it leads by 1.5%. This comparison firmly establishes the B390 as a component with entry-level integrated graphics performance, not a discrete gaming solution.

The GPU's architecture is Xe3-LPG, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It features 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, along with 12 ray tracing cores. Its boost clock is rated at 2500 MHz. However, the memory configuration is the most significant handicap: it uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which in practice means it shares the system's DDR5 memory bandwidth, a severe bottleneck for a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

This lack of dedicated video memory and the reliance on shared system memory explains the frame rates observed. The GPU's raw compute capabilities, rated at 7.680 TFLOPS FP32, are not enough to compensate for the memory bandwidth limitations. The data shows that in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the Arc B390 is the bottleneck. No matter how much headroom the Ryzen 7 7800X3D provides, the B390 cannot translate that into higher frame rates. The performance is capped by the GPU's ability to fetch textures and geometry from shared system memory.

FAQ

Q: What is the best performance this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 56 FPS, but this is only achievable at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset. At any other setting or resolution, the average frame rate drops below 45 FPS.

Q: Is this system capable of playing at 4K resolution?

A: Technically, yes, it can render the game at 3840x2160. However, the performance is not viable for a smooth experience. The average frame rates at 4K are 33 FPS on Low, 26 FPS on Medium, and 19 FPS on both High and Ultra settings.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc B390's average benchmark score is 1482. It is 1.3% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and 1.5% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce 800M. It also outperforms the GeForce GT 625 OEM by 2.5% and the GeForce GT 710 by 2.7%.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU limit the frame rate in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Intel Arc B390's performance is in the 9th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are legacy integrated and entry-level parts. The CPU, which is a high-end desktop processor, is not being utilized to its full potential in this configuration.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate on Low settings is 56 FPS. On Ultra settings, the average drops to 31 FPS. This represents a 44.6% performance decrease from the lowest to the highest preset.

Q: What is the memory configuration of this GPU?

A: The Intel Arc B390 uses "System Shared" memory. It has no dedicated VRAM of its own, and its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," meaning it relies on the system's main memory.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665th out of 2996 combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, a poor result that underscores the performance bottleneck. The GPU is the primary reason for this low rank; its 9th percentile standing among all GPUs drags down the overall performance of the combo.

The CPU, by contrast, is a top-tier part. Its average benchmark score of 33079 places it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. This massive disparity between the CPU's high percentile and the GPU's low percentile is the defining characteristic of this combo. The system's ranking is effectively determined by the weakest link, which is the graphics card. The data suggests that this combo is severely imbalanced for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which places heavy demands on both the CPU and GPU. The high rank of the CPU does not compensate for the GPU's inability to render the game at high frame rates.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D is an 8-core, 16-thread processor based on the Zen 4 architecture. It has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Critically, it features 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which is a key asset for gaming. Its benchmark performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16817 and a single-core score of 1713. Its average benchmark score of 33079 puts it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs.

In this specific test, the CPU's role is to feed the GPU with data. However, the data indicates that the CPU is not the limiting factor. The measured frame rates are entirely consistent with a GPU-bound scenario. The CPU's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen 7 8700G and Intel Core i7-13650HX, have nearly identical average scores, with a delta of 0%. This shows that the 7800X3D is performing as expected. The system's low ranking is not a reflection of the CPU's capabilities but rather the GPU's inability to keep up.

The processor has a TDP of 120 W and supports DDR5 memory. Its performance in synthetic benchmarks, like the 3DMark 16-thread score of 7980, confirms it has ample computational headroom. The bottleneck in Microsoft Flight Simulator is not in the CPU's ability to calculate physics or game logic, but in the GPU's ability to rasterize the scene. The 7800X3D is effectively waiting on the Arc B390 to finish its work, making the CPU a bystander in the performance outcome.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table details the exact average frame rates measured across all tested resolutions and settings:

| Resolution | Settings | Average FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

| :--------- | :------- | :---------- | :------ | :------ |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 33 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 26 | 22 | 30 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 19 | - | - |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 19 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 45 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 35 | 30 | 40 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 26 | - | - |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 25 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Low | 56 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 43 | 37 | 50 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 33 | - | - |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 31 | - | - |

At 1080p, the system is only playable on the Low preset, where it hits 56 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p yields a 43 FPS average, which is borderline. Moving to High and Ultra at the same resolution drops the average to 33 FPS and 31 FPS, respectively, which is a significant compromise. At 1440p, the Low preset is the only one that approaches playability at 45 FPS; all other presets are below 35 FPS. At 4K, the system is not capable of producing smooth gameplay, as even the Low preset only manages 33 FPS, and the higher presets all fall to 19-26 FPS. The data shows a consistent and predictable decline in performance as resolution and graphical fidelity increase, with the GPU being the clear limiting factor throughout.