Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a demanding workload that heavily taxes both the processor and graphics card. The measured data for the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X paired with the Intel Arc B370 reveals a system that is strictly limited by its graphics solution, resulting in a gameplay experience that prioritizes visual fidelity over high frame rates. The combination ranks at 2770 out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the lower tier of systems for this specific title.

Settings Recommendations

The available data provides clear guidance on the optimal settings preset, which depends entirely on the user's target resolution and tolerance for frame rate fluctuations. The primary goal for a playable experience is to maintain a stable frame rate, and the data indicates that the Low preset is the only reliable option for achieving this across all tested resolutions.

At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 50 FPS, which is the highest recorded average for this combo. This is the only setting that allows the system to approach the 60 FPS threshold that is often considered ideal for smooth gameplay. The Medium preset at this resolution drops to an average of 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS, which may be acceptable for a slow-paced simulation but is noticeably less fluid. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p yield averages of 30 FPS and 28 FPS, respectively, which are playable but will feel more sluggish.

The situation becomes more constrained at higher resolutions. At 2560x1440, the Low preset maintains a playable average of 41 FPS, while the Medium preset falls to 32 FPS. For a consistent experience, the Low preset remains the only viable choice. At 3840x2160, even the Low preset only manages an average of 30 FPS, which is the minimum threshold for acceptable playability in this context. All other presets at 4K fall into the low-20s or below.

For the best balance of visual quality and performance, the Low preset is the clear recommendation for all resolutions. It provides the highest average frame rate and ensures the most consistent experience. While the Medium preset is technically playable at 1080p and 1440p, the significant drop in average FPS and the reported minimums suggest that the visual upgrade is not worth the performance cost, given the system's overall constraints. Users prioritizing visual fidelity over frame rate may opt for Medium at 1080p, but the data suggests this will result in a less stable experience.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370 is the definitive bottleneck in this configuration for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its performance profile, as indicated by its benchmark scores, is extremely low, placing it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The only available benchmark for this GPU is a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184, which places it in direct competition with legacy graphics cards like the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (score 1190) and the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (score 1192). This comparison underscores its limited processing power.

The GPU's specifications further clarify its limitations. It is an integrated graphics solution (IGP) with a TDP of just 25 W. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it uses a portion of the system's main RAM, with bandwidth that is "System Dependent." This is a critical factor, as the GPU must compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, a severe disadvantage in a game known for loading large amounts of terrain and scenery data. The GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz. While the boost clock is respectable, the low core counts and reliance on shared memory fundamentally limit its fill rate and shader throughput.

The relationship between the GPU's capabilities and the game's results is clear. As resolution and settings increase, the demand on the GPU's pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth rises. The measured FPS data shows a dramatic drop from the Low to Ultra presets at every resolution, which is a direct consequence of the Arc B370's inability to handle the increased rendering workload. The GPU's low raw performance, as evidenced by its 5th percentile ranking, means it cannot feed the display with enough frames to keep up with the CPU's calculations, making it the primary factor limiting the system's frame rates.

FAQ

Q: What is the best average frame rate this combo can achieve in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded for this combination is 50 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with the Low settings preset.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X the reason for the low frame rates in this game?

A: No. The data indicates the GPU is the limiting factor. The CPU is a high-performance 16-core processor that ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile of all GPUs. The FPS drops are consistent with a GPU bottleneck.

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

A: At 3840x2160, the system is severely limited. The Low preset averages 30 FPS, while Medium, High, and Ultra presets produce averages of 23, 18, and 17 FPS, respectively. The Medium preset shows a minimum of 20 FPS and a maximum of 27 FPS.

Q: What is the most demanding setting tested for this game?

A: The Ultra preset is the most demanding. It consistently produces the lowest average frame rates across all resolutions, with a mere 17 FPS at 4K, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 1080p.

Q: How does the GPU's benchmark score compare to its rivals?

A: The Intel Arc B370's average benchmark score is 1184. Its nearest rival, the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570, has a score of 1186, which is a 0.2% difference. Its performance is essentially on par with several legacy GPUs from over a decade ago.

Q: What is the overall ranking of this CPU+GPU combo for this game?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Arc B370 combination ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 8% of all tested pairings.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Intel Arc B370 ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places the system in the bottom tier of performance, indicating that it will struggle to provide a smooth experience at most settings. This poor ranking is almost entirely attributable to the graphics card. The CPU is a top-tier processor, but its potential is completely negated by the GPU's inability to render frames quickly enough.

The GPU's performance is the anchor dragging this combo down. Its average benchmark score of 1184 puts it in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are a collection of legacy and low-power mobile parts. The data shows that the system's frame rates are consistently low, even at 1080p with the Low preset, which is the least demanding scenario tested. This suggests that the GPU's rendering capabilities are so limited that it cannot take advantage of the CPU's substantial processing power. The result is a system that is not competitive with the vast majority of other tested pairings for this specific simulation.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 5950X is an exceptionally powerful processor that plays a secondary role in this system's performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. It features 16 cores and 32 threads based on the Zen 3 architecture, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Its benchmark results confirm its high-end status. It scores 26017 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 1614 in single-core, and its average benchmark score of 51947 puts it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-13900F and the Intel Core i7-14700, have nearly identical average scores, differing by less than 1%.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to manage game logic, physics, and the vast amounts of scenery data. The 5950X's high multi-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 score, is more than sufficient for this task. However, the measured FPS data shows that the system's performance is not limited by the CPU. This is evident when comparing the consistent frame rates across different resolutions. For instance, at the Low preset, the average FPS only drops from 50 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p and 30 at 4K. This scaling pattern is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck, where the CPU is able to prepare frames faster than the GPU can render them.

The CPU's high performance ensures that it is not the source of the low frame rates. It is a 91st percentile part, and its scores indicate it can handle the game's computational demands with ease. The bottleneck lies entirely with the Intel Arc B370, which cannot keep up with the 5950X's output. Therefore, while the CPU's role is critical for a playable experience, its power is effectively wasted in this particular pairing, as the GPU prevents it from showing its full potential.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across a matrix of resolutions and settings presets. The system consistently produces low frame rates, with the highest average being 50 FPS and the lowest being 17 FPS.

At 1920x1080, the performance is as follows:

• Low: Average 50 FPS.
• Medium: Average 39 FPS, with a minimum of 33 FPS and a maximum of 45 FPS.
• High: Average 30 FPS.
• Ultra: Average 28 FPS.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates decrease across all settings:

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

At 3840x2160, the system's performance is at its lowest:

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

These numbers illustrate a clear and consistent pattern. The Low preset is the only one that provides a playable average frame rate at any resolution, and even then, only at 1080p does it exceed the 45 FPS mark. The Medium preset, which is the next step up, shows a significant drop in performance, averaging between 39 and 23 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are nearly unplayable, with averages ranging from 30 FPS down to 17 FPS. The data also shows that the gap between settings narrows as resolution increases, indicating that the GPU is becoming saturated and the resolution is the dominant factor at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The performance drop from 1080p to 4K is substantial and reveals the nature of the system's bottleneck. The data shows a clear scaling pattern across all settings.

At the Low preset, the average frame rate drops from 50 FPS at 1080p to 41 FPS at 1440p, a decrease of 18%. Moving from 1440p to 4K, the frame rate drops from 41 FPS to 30 FPS, a further decrease of 27%. The total drop from 1080p to 4K at the Low preset is 20 FPS, or 40%.

At the Medium preset, the average frame rate drops from 39 FPS at 1080p to 32 FPS at 1440p, a decrease of 18%. From 1440p to 4K, it drops from 32 FPS to 23 FPS, a decrease of 28%. The total drop from 1080p to 4K is 16 FPS, or 41%.

The High and Ultra presets show a similar pattern. At High, the average drops from 30 FPS at 1080p to 24 FPS at 1440p (a 20% decrease) and then to 18 FPS at 4K (a 25% decrease from 1440p). At Ultra, the average drops from 28 FPS at 1080p to 23 FPS at 1440p (an 18% decrease) and then to 17 FPS at 4K (a 26% decrease from 1440p).

The consistent percentage drops, regardless of the settings preset, are a strong indicator of a GPU bottleneck. If the CPU were the limiting factor, the frame rates would be more consistent across resolutions, as the CPU's workload does not increase as much with resolution as the GPU's does. The fact that the FPS drops by roughly 20-30% at each resolution step-up shows that the Intel Arc B370's rendering throughput is the limiting resource. The GPU is unable to handle the increased pixel count and shading demands of higher resolutions, leading to a direct and predictable decline in performance. This scaling confirms that the system is firmly GPU-limited, and any settings or resolution increase directly taxes the Arc B370's limited capabilities.