Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the measured results for the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D paired with the Intel Arc B370 place this combination near the bottom of the database, ranking 2770 out of 2996 tested combos. The data indicates a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics component, resulting in a playable experience only at the lowest settings and resolutions. This analysis breaks down the specific performance metrics, the role of each component, and the practical settings recommendations based solely on the measured FPS data.

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

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a high-end desktop processor built on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge) for the AMD Socket AM5 platform. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. This 8-core, 16-thread configuration is generally well-suited for modern simulations, and its substantial 96 MB of shared L3 cache is designed to help with complex data sets. The processor’s synthetic benchmark scores reinforce its strength: it achieves a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 23230 and a single-core score of 2080, indicating robust performance in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

However, in the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator at the tested settings, the CPU’s potential is not the limiting factor. The data shows that the system’s frame rates are consistently low across all resolutions, even at 1080p where CPU load is typically highest. For instance, at 1920x1080 with Low settings, the average FPS is 50. While this is the highest score recorded for this combo, it is modest for a CPU of this caliber. The CPU’s benchmark percentile versus all CPUs is 87, showing it is a top-tier part, yet its nearest rivals in average benchmark score—such as the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 (avg score 40081) and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 (avg score 40048)—do not significantly outperform it in synthetic tests, with delta percentages of -0.8% and -0.7%, respectively.

The fact that frame rates drop so dramatically when moving from Low to Ultra settings at the same resolution points to the GPU, not the CPU, being the bottleneck. For example, at 2560x1440, the average FPS falls from 41 on Low to just 23 on Ultra. This scaling is indicative of a graphics-limited scenario. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D’s high boost clock and strong single-thread performance (Geekbench single-core score of 2964) are more than sufficient to feed the Arc B370, but the GPU simply cannot translate that data into high frame rates. The CPU is ready for far more demanding graphics loads, but in this pairing, it is left waiting on the graphics processor.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the playable settings for this combination are strictly limited to the Low preset, and even then, only at lower resolutions. The data shows a clear and consistent performance hierarchy across all three tested resolutions: Low provides the highest average frame rates, followed by Medium, then High, and finally Ultra. The performance gap between presets is significant and consistent, indicating that each step up in visual fidelity incurs a heavy cost on the Arc B370.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset is the only configuration that achieves an average FPS of 50, which is the sole result above 40 FPS for the entire combo. The Medium preset drops to 39 FPS, which is borderline, and High falls to 30 FPS, which is often considered the minimum threshold for a playable, albeit not smooth, experience. Ultra is the worst, at 28 FPS. Given this data, the recommended preset for any playable frame rate is Low. If a user insists on higher visual quality, Medium at 1080p is the only other option that stays above 30 FPS, but it is still a compromise.

The situation worsens at higher resolutions. At 2560x1440, the Low preset averages 41 FPS, which is acceptable, but the Medium preset drops to 32 FPS, and High falls to 24 FPS, which is not a smooth experience for a flight simulator where precise control is important. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only manages an average of 30 FPS, with Medium at 23 FPS and High at 18 FPS. The data strongly suggests that for a consistent and responsive experience, users should stick to the Low preset. For those who prioritize visuals over frame rate, 1080p Medium is the highest quality setting that keeps the average FPS above the 30 FPS mark, though it is still not ideal. The Ultra preset is effectively unplayable across all resolutions, with averages ranging from 28 FPS at 1080p down to 17 FPS at 4K.

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

The resolution scaling data reveals a classic symptom of a GPU-bound system. As the resolution increases, the average FPS drops proportionally, confirming that the Intel Arc B370 is the primary constraint. When moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 50 to 41, a decrease of 9 FPS. Moving further to 3840x2160 on Low yields an average of 30 FPS, a drop of 11 FPS from 1440p. This linear degradation is typical for a graphics card that is running out of pixel-pushing capability.

The trend is even more pronounced on the Medium preset. The average FPS goes from 39 at 1080p, to 32 at 1440p, and finally to 23 at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 4K is roughly 41%, which is a steep penalty. This scaling is not indicative of a CPU limitation; a CPU bottleneck would typically show less of a frame rate drop at higher resolutions because the CPU workload remains relatively constant while the GPU workload increases. Here, the frame rate is dropping significantly with every resolution increase, which is the definitive signature of a GPU that is saturated.

The data for the High and Ultra presets reinforces this conclusion. At High settings, the average FPS is 30 at 1080p, 24 at 1440p, and 18 at 4K. At Ultra, it falls from 28 at 1080p to 23 at 1440p and 17 at 4K. In all cases, the frame rate scales almost linearly with the number of pixels being rendered. This suggests that the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is not the limiting factor; it is delivering frames as fast as the GPU can process them. The 8-core, 16-thread CPU is capable of handling the simulation’s physics and AI, but the Arc B370’s 1280 shading units and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are simply insufficient to maintain high frame rates at these resolutions and settings.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combo for this CPU and GPU pairing?

A: The data shows that the optimal configuration is 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which achieves an average FPS of 50. This is the only tested setting that provides a frame rate comfortably above 40 FPS, making it the smoothest experience available for this combo.

Q: Can this system handle 4K gaming in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. The measured data at 3840x2160 shows that even the Low preset only averages 30 FPS. The Medium preset drops to 23 FPS, and the High and Ultra presets fall to 18 and 17 FPS, respectively. These frame rates are too low for a playable experience at 4K.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the main bottleneck in this system for this game?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The frame rates scale heavily with resolution and settings, which is a characteristic of a graphics-limited system. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a high-performance processor that is not being fully utilized, as evidenced by the low frame rates even at 1080p with a capable CPU.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B370 compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Arc B370 scores 1184. Its nearest rivals are very close, with the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scoring 1186 (a delta of -0.2%), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scoring 1190 (a delta of -0.5%), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scoring 1168 (a delta of 1.4%). This indicates it is performing in a similar class to these older parts.

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

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset averages 50 FPS, while the Ultra preset averages 28 FPS. This represents a significant 22 FPS drop, or roughly a 44% decrease in performance, for the higher visual fidelity of the Ultra preset.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 9800X3D a fast processor in other workloads?

A: Yes. Synthetic benchmarks show it is a very fast processor. It scores 23230 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2080 in single-core. Its average benchmark score is 39768, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, and it is within 1% of rivals like the AMD Ryzen 7 7700 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 365.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture and is built on Intel's 3 nm process. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. A critical limitation is its memory configuration: it uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the system's main memory (DDR5 in this case) for graphics data. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which can be a significant handicap in a memory-intensive game like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The GPU’s raw specifications are modest. It has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, and it offers a FP32 performance of 6.144 TFLOPS. Its only listed benchmark score, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1184, places it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. This low percentile is a clear indicator of its performance class. Its nearest rivals in that benchmark are not modern discrete graphics cards but older, low-end parts like the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190) and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192), showing that its raw compute power is comparable to hardware from a much older generation.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's lack of dedicated VRAM and low fill rate are the primary reasons for the poor performance. The game requires constant loading of high-resolution textures, and the system-shared memory architecture is not suited for this task. The measured FPS data confirms this. For example, the average FPS at 1080p High is 30, which is a low score for such a resolution. The GPU is clearly the limiting factor, as the CPU is more than capable of handling the game’s logic. The 20 ROPs and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate are insufficient to fill the screen efficiently at higher settings, leading to the severe frame rate drops observed when moving from Low to Ultra presets.

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

The following data is taken directly from the measured FPS rows and represents the complete performance profile for this system in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

1920x1080:

• Low: Average FPS is 50. This is the best result for this system across any setting or resolution.
• Medium: Average FPS is 39, with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45.
• High: Average FPS is 30.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 28.

2560x1440:

• Low: Average FPS is 41.
• Medium: Average FPS is 32, with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36.
• High: Average FPS is 24.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 23.

3840x2160:

• Low: Average FPS is 30.
• Medium: Average FPS is 23, with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27.
• High: Average FPS is 18.
• Ultra: Average FPS is 17.

The data shows a consistent pattern: each reduction in resolution or settings tier yields a proportional increase in frame rate. However, even the best-case scenario (1080p Low at 50 FPS) is merely acceptable, and all other configurations fall below the 60 FPS threshold that is standard for a smooth PC gaming experience. The combination of a top-tier CPU and a low-tier GPU results in a system where the graphics card is the sole arbiter of playability, and the measured numbers demonstrate that it is only suitable for the most modest graphical demands.