Microsoft Flight Simulator

The Intel Arc B390, an integrated graphics solution built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, is paired with the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X in this flight simulator test. The benchmark results are clear: this combination is fundamentally limited by its GPU, and the most playable experience requires a deliberate trade-off between visual fidelity and frame rate. The data shows that the only settings that approach a fluid experience are at the Low preset, and even then, only at 1080p does the average frame rate cross the 50 FPS threshold. For users prioritizing a consistent simulation experience, the Low preset at 1920x1080 is the only viable option, yielding an average of 56 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 43 FPS and a minimum of 37 FPS, is a secondary choice for those who need a balance, but the High and Ultra presets at any resolution fall short of providing a smooth, reliable frame rate for a demanding flight simulator.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides a clear hierarchy of performance across the four available presets. The Ultra preset, which represents the highest visual fidelity, produces an average of 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. These numbers are uniformly below the threshold for a playable simulation experience, which typically requires a stable 30 FPS or higher. The minimum frame rates for the Ultra preset are not recorded in the data, which suggests the performance is likely inconsistent and prone to stutters, making it unsuitable for the smooth camera movements and precise control inputs required in flight simulation.

The High preset offers a marginal improvement, with average frame rates of 33 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. While the 1080p result is technically above 30 FPS on average, the lack of recorded minimum frame rates and the proximity to the 30 FPS threshold indicate this setting is risky for sustained play, as any complex scenery or dense cloud coverage could easily cause dips below playable levels. The performance gap between High and Ultra is small, suggesting that the GPU is already saturated and the additional visual effects in Ultra do not significantly alter the frame rate, but neither provides a comfortable margin.

The Medium preset is the first to show a meaningful improvement in playability. At 1080p, it achieves an average of 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS. This is a more stable result, and the minimum frame rate being above 30 FPS suggests a more consistent experience. At 1440p, the Medium preset averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS, which is borderline playable but leaves little headroom for demanding scenes. At 4K, the Medium preset drops to an average of 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 FPS, which is not recommended. This preset appears to be the best balance of visual quality and performance for users who cannot accept the visual downgrade of Low settings.

The Low preset is the definitive choice for achieving the highest frame rates. It delivers an average of 56 FPS at 1080p, 45 FPS at 1440p, and 33 FPS at 4K. The 1080p result is the only configuration in the entire dataset that provides a consistently smooth experience, with a frame rate well above the 30 FPS baseline. The 1440p result at 45 FPS is also highly playable, and even the 4K result at 33 FPS is marginally acceptable. The data strongly suggests that for this hardware combination, the Low preset is the only setting that unlocks the full potential of the CPU, which would otherwise be bottlenecked by the GPU at higher settings. The recommendation is to use Low at 1080p for the best experience, with Low at 1440p as a strong alternative if higher resolution is desired.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X and the Intel Arc B390 ranks 2665 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all tested systems, a position that directly reflects the severe performance limitation imposed by the integrated GPU. The data indicates that this pairing is far below average for this specific game, which is known for its heavy reliance on both CPU and GPU resources. The rank is a consequence of the GPU’s very low benchmark percentile, which is 9, meaning it performs better than only 9% of all GPUs in the database. This is a stark contrast to the CPU, which has a percentile of 86, indicating it outperforms 86% of all CPUs.

The disparity between the CPU and GPU performance is the defining characteristic of this combo. The Ryzen 7 9700X is a high-end desktop processor, as evidenced by its average benchmark score of 37943, which places it in the 86th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14901E with an average score of 37911 (a 0.1% difference) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 with an average score of 37904 (also a 0.1% difference). This shows the CPU is competitive with some of the best processors available. In contrast, the Intel Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of just 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile. Its nearest rivals are all legacy or low-end parts, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX with a score of 1463 (1.3% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 with a score of 1443 (2.7% difference).

This massive imbalance means that in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the system’s overall rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU. The CPU is capable of far higher frame rates, but it is starved of work by the GPU’s inability to render frames quickly. The data shows that even at the Low preset, the CPU is likely not being fully utilized, as the GPU is still the primary bottleneck. The combo rank of 2665 out of 2996 is a direct measure of this inefficiency. For context, a system with the same CPU but a more powerful discrete GPU would rank significantly higher, as the CPU’s strong performance would be able to contribute to higher frame rates. The data suggests that this pairing is only suitable for users who are willing to accept very low graphical settings and frame rates, or who intend to upgrade the GPU in the future.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is the decisive factor in this system’s performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its integrated nature, with system-shared memory and a TDP of 80 W, immediately limits its capability compared to discrete graphics cards. The GPU’s clock speeds are listed with a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz, but its performance in this game is more accurately defined by its benchmark score and percentile. With a percentile of 9 and an average 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, it is positioned at the very bottom of the GPU performance spectrum. Its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710, are all older, low-end parts, confirming its classification as a basic graphics solution.

The GPU’s memory configuration is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the system’s main DDR5 memory rather than dedicated VRAM. The bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which indicates that performance can vary based on the CPU’s memory speed and configuration. In this case, the Ryzen 7 9700X supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. While this is a respectable figure for a CPU, it is far lower than what a dedicated GPU with its own high-speed VRAM would provide. This shared memory architecture is a major bottleneck, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, which is critical for a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator that streams large amounts of terrain and scenery data.

The GPU’s rendering capabilities are also limited by its specifications. It has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. These numbers are low compared to any modern discrete GPU, and they directly translate into the low pixel and texture rates of 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS, which is a modest figure. In practical terms, these specifications mean the GPU can only handle a limited number of pixels and textures per frame. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, this results in the significant frame rate drops observed when moving from Low to High or Ultra settings. The data shows that at 1080p, the average frame rate drops from 56 FPS on Low to 33 FPS on High, a 41% reduction. At 4K, the drop is even more severe, from 33 FPS on Low to 19 FPS on High, a 42% reduction. These numbers clearly indicate that the GPU’s rendering throughput is the limiting factor, and that higher settings impose a workload it simply cannot handle.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a complete picture of this combo’s performance across all resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the lowest resolution tested, the system achieves an average of 56 FPS on Low, 43 FPS on Medium, 33 FPS on High, and 31 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset’s minimum of 37 FPS and maximum of 50 FPS show a relatively stable performance range. The High and Ultra presets, while averaging above 30 FPS, do not have recorded minimum frame rates, which is a concern for consistency. The jump from Low to Medium is 13 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High is 10 FPS, and from High to Ultra is only 2 FPS. This diminishing return suggests that the GPU is nearing its limits, and the extra visual features in Ultra do not cost much performance because the GPU is already saturated.

At 2560x1440, the performance drops across all settings. The Low preset averages 45 FPS, which is a 11 FPS decrease from 1080p. The Medium preset averages 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS, showing that it is just barely holding onto playability. The High preset averages 26 FPS, and the Ultra preset averages 25 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at this resolution is only 1 FPS, indicating that the GPU is completely constrained. The data shows that the step from Low to Medium at 1440p is a 10 FPS drop, while the step from Medium to High is a 9 FPS drop. This shows that each increase in settings has a similar cost, which is a sign of a uniform bottleneck in the GPU’s pixel processing pipeline.

At 3840x2160, the performance is the lowest of all. The Low preset averages 33 FPS, which is the only setting at this resolution that is above 30 FPS. The Medium preset averages 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS, which is below the playable threshold. The High and Ultra presets both average 19 FPS, making them effectively unplayable. The data shows a clear pattern: the performance hit from increasing resolution is more severe than the hit from increasing settings. For example, moving from 1080p Low to 1440p Low is an 11 FPS drop (56 to 45), while moving from 1440p Low to 4K Low is a 12 FPS drop (45 to 33). This indicates that the GPU’s fill rate and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints, as they are directly stressed by higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a classic GPU-bound scenario. At the Low preset, the average frame rate declines from 56 FPS at 1080p to 45 FPS at 1440p and then to 33 FPS at 4K. This represents a 20% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 27% drop from 1440p to 4K. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 23 FPS, or 41%. This scaling is not linear, but it shows a consistent decline that is typical of a GPU that is being pushed to its limits. The fact that the frame rate does not halve when the pixel count quadruples (from 1080p to 4K) is because the CPU is still able to provide frames at a certain rate, but the GPU’s rendering time per frame increases significantly.

The scaling at the Medium preset shows a similar trend. The average frame rate drops from 43 FPS at 1080p to 35 FPS at 1440p and then to 26 FPS at 4K. This is a 19% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 26% drop from 1440p to 4K. The minimum frame rates also scale, from 37 FPS at 1080p to 30 FPS at 1440p and 22 FPS at 4K. The maximum frame rates follow suit, from 50 FPS at 1080p to 40 FPS at 1440p and 30 FPS at 4K. The consistency of these drops, roughly 20-25% per resolution step, suggests that the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would be more constant across resolutions, as the CPU’s workload does not increase significantly with resolution.

The scaling at the High preset is more dramatic. The average frame rate drops from 33 FPS at 1080p to 26 FPS at 1440p and then to 19 FPS at 4K. This is a 21% drop from 1080p to 1440p and a 27% drop from 1440p to 4K. The Ultra preset shows a similar pattern, with 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. The percentage drops are consistent with the other presets, which reinforces the conclusion that the GPU is the bottleneck. The data indicates that the limiting component is the GPU’s ability to process pixels, not the CPU’s ability to issue draw calls. This is further confirmed by the fact that the CPU is a high-end 8-core, 16-thread part with a boost clock of 5.50 GHz and a strong single-thread performance score of 2211 in Cinebench R23, which should be more than sufficient for this game’s CPU demands.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 9700X is a powerful processor that is severely underutilized in this configuration. Its specifications are robust: 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The CPU has an L3 cache of 32 MB shared, and it supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Its benchmark scores are impressive, with a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20485 and a single-core score of 2211. The Geekbench scores are also strong, with a multicore score of 17906 and a single-core score of 3023. The 3DMark tests show a 16-thread score of 9824 and a single-thread score of 1280. These numbers place the CPU in the 86th percentile, making it a top-tier part for any application.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle game logic, physics, and the complex simulation of flight dynamics, weather, and terrain loading. The game is known to be CPU-intensive, especially at lower resolutions where the GPU is not the bottleneck. However, in this case, the data shows that the GPU is the primary bottleneck at all settings and resolutions. The evidence for this is the consistent frame rate scaling with resolution. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would be similar across different resolutions, as the CPU’s workload is largely independent of resolution. The data shows a clear decrease in FPS as resolution increases, which is the hallmark of a GPU-bound system.

The CPU’s performance in this game is effectively masked by the GPU. For example, the CPU’s high single-thread performance, which is critical for flight simulators, is not fully utilized. The single-thread scores of 1280 in 3DMark and 2211 in Cinebench R23 are strong, and they would allow for high frame rates if the GPU could keep up. However, the Intel Arc B390’s low fill rate and memory bandwidth prevent it from rendering frames quickly enough. The result is that the system’s performance is capped by the GPU’s maximum output, which is around 56 FPS at 1080p Low. The data shows that even at the lowest settings, the frame rate is not limited by the CPU, as a more powerful GPU would likely yield higher frame rates with the same CPU. The CPU’s nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-14901E and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, have nearly identical average benchmark scores, but in a system with a better GPU, they would likely produce much higher frame rates in this game. Thus, the Ryzen 7 9700X is a capable and powerful CPU, but its potential is unrealized in this specific pairing.