Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 9 7900X + Intel Arc B370

This combo pairs one of AMD's strongest desktop CPUs with an entry-level Intel integrated graphics solution, and the benchmark results reflect that mismatch. The Ryzen 9 7900X is a 12-core, 24-thread Zen 4 part with a 4.70 GHz base clock and 5.60 GHz boost clock, while the Arc B370 is an integrated GPU with 1280 shading units and a 2400 MHz boost clock. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the data shows this pairing delivers playable frame rates only at 1080p with reduced settings, and the GPU is the dominant bottleneck across all tested configurations.

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

The Ryzen 9 7900X brings substantial processing power to this flight simulator. With 12 cores and 24 threads on the Zen 4 Raphael architecture, it offers the kind of multi-threaded headroom that simulation games can utilize for physics, AI traffic, and world streaming. The 4.70 GHz base clock and 5.60 GHz boost clock are both high figures, and the 64 MB shared L3 cache helps keep frequently accessed data close to the cores. The CPU's 91st percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database confirms it sits well above typical desktop processors.

However, the measured frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator tell a different story than the CPU's raw potential. At 1080p Low, the combo achieves 50 FPS average, which is the highest result in the entire dataset. At 1080p Medium, it drops to 39 FPS, and at 1080p High it falls to 30 FPS. These numbers suggest the CPU is not the limiting factor — a 12-core Zen 4 part with 5.6 GHz boost capability should handle the simulation's single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads without breaking a sweat. The Cinebench R23 scores of 29300 multi-core and 2016.5 single-core reinforce this, as does the Geekbench single-core score of 2617.

The CPU's benchmark rivals show it sits in a tight cluster. The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 53206, just 0.2% behind the Ryzen 9 7900X's average of 53288. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 is 0.3% ahead at 53469, while the Intel Xeon 634 trails by 0.6% at 52974. The Intel Core i7-14700F is 0.6% ahead at 53620. These are all within a percentage point, meaning the Ryzen 9 7900X delivers performance comparable to these alternatives in general CPU benchmarks. But in this specific game, the frame rates are constrained by something other than the CPU.

The game's release date of 2020-08-17 means Microsoft Flight Simulator launched before this CPU was available — the Ryzen 9 7900X came out on 2022-09-26. The CPU's architecture and thread count are more than adequate for the title. The 3DMark thread scaling benchmarks show strong progression from 2137 with 2 threads to 7798 with 8 threads and 12536 with max threads, indicating the CPU scales well when more cores are utilized. The PassMark multi-thread score of 51406 and physics score of 3060 further demonstrate the CPU's capability. The limiting factor is clearly not processing power.

How This Combo Ranks — use comboRankInGame vs other tested combos

The combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 8% of all tested systems, which is a poor result for a CPU that ranks in the 91st percentile. The discrepancy between CPU potential and actual game performance is stark. The ranking means roughly 226 combos perform worse, while 2770 perform better — the vast majority of tested systems deliver higher frame rates in this game.

This low ranking is directly attributable to the Arc B370 GPU. The GPU's percentile ranking against all GPUs is just 5th percentile, meaning it performs worse than 95% of all graphics cards in the database. Its average benchmark score of 1184 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is extremely low. The nearest GPU rivals show the company this integrated part keeps: the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 scores 1186 (0.2% ahead), the ATI Radeon HD 5770 scores 1190 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7650M scores 1192 (0.7% ahead), and the AMD FirePro M2000 scores 1168 (1.4% behind). These are all legacy or mobile parts from over a decade ago, yet they perform at the same level as this 2026 Intel GPU.

The combo ranking reflects the reality that Microsoft Flight Simulator is a demanding title, and the Arc B370 is simply not equipped to handle it at higher settings or resolutions. The game's measured data shows the GPU is the bottleneck at every test point. Even at 1080p Low, where the CPU could theoretically push much higher frame rates, the combo only reaches 50 FPS. This is far below what the Ryzen 9 7900X alone could achieve with a capable discrete GPU. The ranking of 2770 out of 2996 is a clear signal that this pairing is mismatched for this particular game.

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

The resolution scaling data reveals a classic GPU-bound pattern. Moving from 1080p to 1440p to 4K at each settings level produces frame rate drops that are consistent with the GPU being the primary constraint. At Low settings, the average FPS goes from 50 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p to 30 at 4K. That is an 18% drop from 1080p to 1440p, and a 27% drop from 1440p to 4K. At High settings, the numbers are 30 FPS at 1080p, 24 FPS at 1440p, and 18 FPS at 4K — a 20% drop, then a 25% drop.

The Medium settings data includes minimum and maximum frame rates, which provide additional detail. At 1080p Medium, the combo averages 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. At 1440p Medium, the average drops to 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. At 4K Medium, the average falls to 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. The minimum frame rates scale proportionally with the averages, indicating consistent performance degradation as resolution increases rather than occasional stutters.

This scaling pattern — where every resolution step costs roughly 20-30% performance — is characteristic of a GPU that is running out of pixel throughput and fill rate. The Arc B370's specifications support this interpretation: a 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are very low figures for modern gaming. The 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 performance is also minimal. A CPU-limited scenario would show much smaller frame rate differences between 1080p and 4K, because the CPU workload stays roughly constant while the GPU workload increases. The data shows the opposite: the CPU is waiting on the GPU at every resolution.

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

At 1080p, the combo delivers its best results. Low settings produce an average of 50 FPS, which is the only configuration that crosses the 60 FPS threshold territory (though it does not reach it). Medium settings average 39 FPS with a minimum of 33 and a maximum of 45. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p is 22 FPS — from 50 down to 28 — showing that each settings tier costs roughly 7-11 FPS.

At 1440p, the frame rates drop across the board. Low settings average 41 FPS, a 9 FPS decrease from 1080p. Medium settings average 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 and a maximum of 36. High settings average 24 FPS, and Ultra settings average 23 FPS. The spread between Low and Ultra at 1440p narrows to 18 FPS, suggesting that at higher resolutions, the GPU is struggling even at Low settings and the relative cost of quality settings diminishes.

At 4K, the results are mostly below playable thresholds. Low settings average 30 FPS, which is marginal. Medium settings average 23 FPS with a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 27. High settings average 18 FPS, and Ultra settings average 17 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra at 4K is just 13 FPS, further confirming that the GPU is saturated regardless of quality settings. The minimum frame rate of 20 at 4K Medium is particularly telling — even the floor is below what most users would consider comfortable for a flight simulator.

Across all resolutions, the pattern is consistent: the Arc B370 cannot maintain high frame rates in Microsoft Flight Simulator. The best case scenario is 50 FPS at 1080p Low, and the worst case is 17 FPS at 4K Ultra. For a game that requires smooth frame rates for realistic flight dynamics and camera panning, these numbers are marginal at best.

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

The Intel Arc B370 is an integrated GPU based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process. It has a 300 MHz base clock and 2400 MHz boost clock. The memory configuration is "System Shared" for both size and type, with a system-dependent bandwidth — there is no dedicated VRAM. This means the GPU relies on the system's DDR5 memory, which the CPU supports with dual-channel 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. However, sharing system memory with the CPU introduces latency and bandwidth contention that dedicated GPUs avoid.

The GPU's 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs are very low numbers for a modern graphics solution. It has 10 ray tracing cores, but the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1184 indicates that real-world gaming performance is minimal. The 25 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm this is a low-power integrated solution, not a discrete gaming GPU. It does support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it is feature-complete from an API standpoint, but the underlying hardware throughput is insufficient.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's limitations manifest directly in the frame rates. The game is known for heavy GPU load due to detailed scenery, weather effects, and complex lighting. At 4K Ultra, the combo manages only 17 FPS average — a clear indication that the Arc B370's 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is overwhelmed by the game's rendering demands. Even at 1080p Low, the 50 FPS average is achieved only by drastically reducing the visual quality, and the minimum frame rates at Medium settings (33 FPS at 1080p) show that the GPU cannot sustain consistent performance.

The GPU's percentile ranking of 5th place against all GPUs puts it in the company of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and Radeon HD 5770, both of which are around 15 years old. This context matters for understanding the frame rate data: the Arc B370 is fundamentally not designed for modern gaming at playable settings. Its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is a fraction of what current discrete GPUs offer, and the 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate cannot feed the game's detailed textures at higher resolutions. The system-shared memory bandwidth, which is system dependent, further limits performance when the game needs to stream large textures and geometry.

FAQ

Q: What is the best frame rate this combo achieves in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The highest average FPS is 50, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest is 17 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: It ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combos, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems tested in this game.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the clear bottleneck. The Ryzen 9 7900X ranks in the 91st percentile for CPU performance, while the Arc B370 ranks in the 5th percentile for GPUs. Frame rates drop consistently with resolution increases, indicating GPU saturation.

Q: What frame rates can I expect at 1440p with Medium settings?

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the combo averages 32 FPS with a minimum of 27 FPS and a maximum of 36 FPS.

Q: How does the Arc B370 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1184 is 0.2% behind the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 (1186), 0.5% behind the ATI Radeon HD 5770 (1190), 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7650M (1192), and 1.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro M2000 (1168).

Q: Does the CPU's multi-threaded performance help in this game?

A: The CPU has strong multi-threaded scores (29300 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 51406 in PassMark multi-thread), but the game's frame rates are constrained by the GPU. The CPU's power does not translate to higher FPS because the Arc B370 cannot keep up with rendering demands.