Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator – AMD Ryzen 9 5900X + Intel Arc B570

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X paired with the Intel Arc B570 delivers a playable but not high-refresh experience in Microsoft Flight Simulator, ranking 2406th out of 2996 tested combos. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo reaches 86 FPS average, but Ultra settings at 3840x2160 drop to 28 FPS average. The data shows a system that handles the simulator’s CPU-heavy workload well—12 cores and 24 threads from the Ryzen 9 5900X—while the Arc B570’s 10 GB GDDR6 memory and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth become the limiting factor at higher resolutions and quality presets.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average FPS this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 86 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only result above 80 FPS across all tested resolutions and settings.

Q: How does this combo perform at 4K resolution?

A: At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 28 on Ultra to 51 on Low. Medium settings produce 40 FPS average with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46, while High yields 30 FPS average.

Q: What is the combo’s ranking among all tested configurations?

A: The combo ranks 2406th out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the lower percentile of systems tested for this game.

Q: Does the CPU or GPU have a higher benchmark percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Arc B570 ranks in the 65th percentile among all GPUs. This suggests the CPU is relatively stronger compared to its peers than the GPU is.

Q: What settings provide the most consistent frame times?

A: Medium settings at all three resolutions include minimum and maximum FPS data, unlike Low, High, and Ultra which only report average FPS. At 1920x1080 Medium, the range is 57 to 77 FPS; at 2560x1440 Medium, it is 46 to 62; at 3840x2160 Medium, it is 34 to 46.

Q: How does the Arc B570 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B570’s average benchmark score of 20556 is 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534), 0.1% below the Intel Arc A750 (20582), and 0.4% above the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480). It sits essentially level with these GPUs in synthetic benchmarks.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 2406 out of 2996 places this configuration in the bottom 20% of tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a significant finding given the CPU’s strength. The Ryzen 9 5900X sits in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41376, which is within 0.5% of its nearest rivals: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (41263, 0.3% lower), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, 0.4% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, 0.4% lower), and the Intel Core i7-14650HX (41576, 0.5% higher). This CPU performance is not the bottleneck in this pairing.

The GPU, however, ranks in the 65th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20556. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 0.1% lower), Intel Arc A750 (20582, 0.1% higher), NVIDIA Quadro M4000M (20480, 0.4% lower), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662, 0.5% higher). The GPU is essentially tied with these mid-range parts in synthetic testing, but Microsoft Flight Simulator’s demands at higher resolutions push the Arc B570 beyond its comfortable operating range.

The delta between CPU and GPU percentiles—87 versus 65—explains the low combo rank. The system is CPU-heavy in capability but GPU-limited in practice. Across all 2996 combos, this pairing lands in the lower quartile because the simulator’s frame rate at Ultra settings across all resolutions (28 to 48 FPS average) does not match the CPU’s processing headroom. The rank reflects the measured FPS results, which show that only at 1080p Low does the combo exceed 80 FPS. At 1440p and 4K, even Low settings produce 69 and 51 FPS respectively. For a flight simulator where smoothness matters, these numbers place the combo well behind more balanced configurations.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G21 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. It operates at a base clock of 2500 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, which is notable for being a constant clock rather than a variable boost. The memory subsystem consists of 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 2375 MHz, equivalent to 19 Gbps effective.

The GPU has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units, along with 18 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 200.0 GPixel/s, texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 11.52 TFLOPS. The TDP is 150 W with a dual-slot cooler and a single 8-pin power connector, requiring a suggested 450 W power supply. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, which is half the lane width of typical x16 GPUs.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s 10 GB VRAM and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are the determining factors at higher settings. The measured FPS data shows a clear pattern: at 1920x1080, the average FPS drops from 86 on Low to 67 on Medium, 50 on High, and 48 on Ultra. This is a 44% reduction from Low to Ultra. At 2560x1440, the same settings produce 69, 54, 41, and 39 FPS respectively—a 43% reduction. At 3840x2160, the numbers are 51, 40, 30, and 28 FPS, a 45% reduction. The consistent ~44% drop across resolutions when moving from Low to Ultra indicates that the GPU is hitting its architectural limits rather than a memory capacity wall, as the scaling is uniform.

The GPU’s benchmark scores reinforce this. Its PassMark G3D score is 14195, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2649. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 83514 and Vulkan score of 96844 show decent compute capability, but these are not directly indicative of flight simulator performance. The GPU’s percentile of 65 means it outperforms about two-thirds of tested GPUs, yet it still falls short for this game’s high-end presets. The 10 GB VRAM is adequate for 1080p and 1440p, but at 4K Ultra, the combination of higher texture detail and longer draw distances likely stresses both the memory capacity and bandwidth, resulting in the 28 FPS average.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data covers three resolutions and four settings, with only Medium settings providing minimum and maximum FPS values.

At 1920x1080, the combo achieves its best results. Low settings produce an average of 86 FPS, which is the only result above 80 FPS in the entire dataset. Medium settings yield 67 FPS average, with a minimum of 57 and maximum of 77. High settings drop to 50 FPS average, and Ultra settings produce 48 FPS average. The delta between Low and Ultra is 38 FPS, or 44% of the Low value.

At 2560x1440, the performance scales down predictably. Low settings average 69 FPS. Medium settings average 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 and maximum of 62. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra settings average 39 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 30 FPS, or 43% of the Low value. This resolution is the sweet spot for balanced play, as Medium stays above 50 FPS average.

At 3840x2160, the GPU becomes the limiting factor. Low settings average 51 FPS, which is the only 4K result above 50 FPS. Medium settings average 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 and maximum of 46. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 23 FPS, or 45% of the Low value. The minimum FPS of 34 at 4K Medium indicates that even at this setting, frame drops can occur during dense scenery or weather effects.

The consistent percentage drop across all three resolutions—44%, 43%, and 45% from Low to Ultra—suggests that the scaling is resolution-independent and driven by the settings themselves. The step from Low to Medium costs roughly 19 FPS at 1080p (86 to 67), 15 FPS at 1440p (69 to 54), and 11 FPS at 4K (51 to 40). The step from Medium to High costs 17 FPS at 1080p, 13 FPS at 1440p, and 10 FPS at 4K. The step from High to Ultra is smaller: 2 FPS at 1080p, 2 FPS at 1440p, and 2 FPS at 4K. This indicates that Ultra provides marginal gains over High in this game, and the largest performance hit comes from moving from Low to Medium.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 3 architecture codenamed Vermeer, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, with a TDP of 105 W. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. It supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The socket is AMD Socket AM4, and it uses PCIe Gen 4. The CPU was released on 2020-11-04 with a launch MSRP of $549.

In benchmark tests, the Ryzen 9 5900X demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score is 16262, and its single-core score is 1527. The Geekbench multicore score is 14118, with a single-core score of 2083. The 3DMark tests show scaling from 1852 at 2 threads to 9075 at 16 threads and 10075 at max threads. The PassMark multithread score is 39002, with a single-thread score of 3469. These results place the CPU in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 41376.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle the simulation logic, including flight dynamics, weather systems, and AI traffic. The 12 cores and 24 threads provide ample parallel processing capability, as evidenced by the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 16262. However, the game’s frame rate is not solely dependent on CPU performance. The measured FPS at 1080p Ultra (48 FPS) versus 1080p Low (86 FPS) shows a 38 FPS difference, which is driven by GPU settings rather than CPU capability. The CPU can push well beyond 86 FPS in synthetic tests, but the GPU becomes the bottleneck at higher quality settings.

The CPU’s nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks are all within 0.5% of its average score, indicating that the Ryzen 9 5900X is not an outlier in either direction. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (0.3% lower), Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (0.4% lower), AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.4% lower), and Intel Core i7-14650HX (0.5% higher) all perform nearly identically in average benchmark scores. This means the CPU is not the differentiator in this combo’s ranking; the GPU is.

At 1080p Low, where the GPU is less stressed, the CPU’s 12 cores allow the game to reach 86 FPS. But at 4K Ultra, the CPU is likely waiting on the GPU to render frames, resulting in 28 FPS. The CPU’s single-thread performance, measured at 941 in 3DMark single-thread and 250 in Cinebench R15 single-core, is sufficient for the game’s primary thread, but the overall frame rate is constrained by the GPU’s 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 380.0 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the best experience for this combo depends on the target resolution and desired smoothness.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 86 FPS average, which is the highest of any measured result. However, this comes at the cost of visual fidelity. The Medium preset at 67 FPS average (with a range of 57 to 77 FPS) provides a better balance, as it stays above 60 FPS on average and the minimum of 57 FPS is still playable. High at 50 FPS and Ultra at 48 FPS are close, but both dip below the 60 FPS threshold that many users prefer for flight simulators where smooth panning is important. For 1080p, Medium is the recommended setting—it offers a 19 FPS advantage over High while retaining most visual improvements over Low.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 69 FPS is the only setting that exceeds 60 FPS average. Medium at 54 FPS (with a range of 46 to 62 FPS) is the best compromise, as the minimum of 46 FPS is acceptable for a flight simulator where sudden frame drops are less noticeable than in fast-action games. High at 41 FPS and Ultra at 39 FPS are both below 45 FPS, which may cause noticeable stutter during complex scenes. For 1440p, Medium is the recommended setting, as it provides a 13 FPS advantage over High and keeps the average above 50 FPS.

At 3840x2160, the Low preset at 51 FPS is the only setting above 50 FPS. Medium at 40 FPS (with a range of 34 to 46 FPS) is the highest quality setting that remains consistently playable, though the minimum of 34 FPS indicates potential drops during heavy load. High at 30 FPS and Ultra at 28 FPS are at the edge of playability for a flight simulator, where precise control inputs matter. For 4K, the Low preset is recommended for consistent performance, while Medium is acceptable for users who prioritize visuals over frame rate stability.

Across all resolutions, the data shows that Ultra provides only a 2 FPS improvement over High, making High the better choice if visual quality is a priority but frame rate matters. The step from Medium to High costs 17 FPS at 1080p, 13 FPS at 1440p, and 10 FPS at 4K, which is a significant drop for the visual gains. The step from Low to Medium costs 19 FPS at 1080p, 15 FPS at 1440p, and 11 FPS at 4K, which is a similar magnitude. Therefore, users should choose between Low and Medium as the primary quality tiers, with High as a compromise if they have a variable refresh rate monitor that can handle the lower frame rates.

For the best overall experience, 1920x1080 with Medium settings provides 67 FPS average with a 57 to 77 FPS range, which is the most stable high-performance configuration in the dataset. At 2560x1440, Medium at 54 FPS is playable but requires accepting some frame drops. At 3840x2160, Low at 51 FPS is the only viable option for smooth gameplay, and users should avoid Ultra entirely due to the 28 FPS average. The combo’s rank of 2406 out of 2996 reflects these limitations—it is a capable 1080p and entry-level 1440p system, but not a high-end 4K solution for Microsoft Flight Simulator.