Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with AMD Ryzen 9 9900X + Intel Arc B390

The pairing of AMD's 12-core Ryzen 9 9900X with Intel's integrated Arc B390 graphics produces a system that sits at the very bottom of the GPU performance hierarchy while carrying one of the strongest CPUs available. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings tell a consistent story: the Arc B390 is the limiting factor in nearly every scenario, and its 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs (with an average benchmark score of 1482) confirms that this is a configuration built for CPU-heavy tasks rather than high-fidelity flight simulation. The data shows a system that can achieve playable frame rates only at 1080p with reduced settings, while 4K Ultra remains firmly in slideshow territory.

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

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor built on Intel's 3 nm process with the Xe3-LPG architecture, a mobile-oriented design that draws just 80 W and requires no external power connectors. Its base clock runs at 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz, with memory that is system-shared — meaning there is no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated memory bus width, and bandwidth is entirely system-dependent. This architecture choice has profound implications for Microsoft Flight Simulator, a title that streams vast amounts of terrain and photogrammetry data and benefits enormously from fast, abundant memory bandwidth.

The GPU's compute resources are modest: 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. Peak pixel fill rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput reaches 7.680 TFLOPS. These specifications place the Arc B390 in direct competition with legacy NVIDIA parts — its nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 520MX (1.3% faster), GeForce 800M (1.5% faster), GT 625 OEM (2.5% faster), and GT 710 (2.7% faster). The deltaPct values here are remarkably tight, all within 2.7 points, indicating that the Arc B390's raw compute capability is essentially equivalent to a decade-old entry-level discrete GPU.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, these GPU resources translate directly into the measured frame rates. The game's reliance on detailed cockpit instrumentation, dense urban environments, and dynamic weather effects means that even the Low preset at 1080p demands consistent geometry and shader work. The Arc B390 delivers 56 FPS at that setting, but the margin for error is thin. Moving to Medium drops the average to 43 FPS, and High falls to 33 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1080p produces just 31 FPS. These numbers reflect a GPU that can handle the game's baseline rendering but has no headroom for the additional effects and draw distances that higher presets introduce.

The system-shared memory model is particularly problematic for this title. Flight Simulator is known for loading large texture sets and maintaining a vast world in memory, and the Arc B390's reliance on shared system memory with system-dependent bandwidth creates a bottleneck that scales with resolution. At 4K, the pixel workload quadruples relative to 1080p, and the integrated GPU's limited ROP count and memory throughput become crippling. The data shows 4K Ultra at 19 FPS and 4K High at 19 FPS, with only 4K Low reaching 33 FPS. The GPU's 9th percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with its 1482 average benchmark score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, provides a quantitative anchor for these poor results: this is a component designed for basic display output and light workloads, not for AAA flight simulation.

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

The measured FPS data spans three resolutions and four quality presets, yielding twelve distinct data points. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers an average of 56 FPS, which is the single highest frame rate in the entire dataset. Medium at 1080p averages 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 and maximum of 50, providing a playable but not smooth experience. High at 1080p drops to 33 FPS, and Ultra falls further to 31 FPS. The gap between Low and Medium is 13 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 10 FPS, and between High and Ultra is just 2 FPS — suggesting diminishing returns as settings increase but also that the GPU is nearing its ceiling.

Moving to 2560x1440, the pattern repeats with lower absolute numbers. Low averages 45 FPS, which is an 11 FPS drop from the 1080p Low result. Medium averages 35 FPS with a range of 30 to 40, representing an 8 FPS decrease from 1080p Medium. High averages 26 FPS, down 7 FPS from 1080p High. Ultra averages 25 FPS, down 6 FPS from 1080p Ultra. The resolution penalty is nearly uniform across settings, with each step from 1080p to 1440p costing roughly 6-11 FPS depending on the preset.

At 3840x2160, the results become marginal for any interactive use. Low averages 33 FPS, which is a 12 FPS drop from 1440p Low and a 23 FPS drop from 1080p Low. Medium averages 26 FPS with a minimum of 22 and maximum of 30. High and Ultra both average 19 FPS, with no recorded minimum or maximum values. The gap between 1440p and 4K is severe: 19 FPS fewer for Low, 9 FPS fewer for Medium, 7 FPS fewer for High, and 6 FPS fewer for Ultra. Notably, the High and Ultra presets converge at 4K, both hitting 19 FPS, which indicates that the GPU is fully saturated and additional settings changes no longer matter.

The combination ranking places this system at 2665 out of 2996 total combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, putting it in the bottom 11% of tested configurations. This rank is consistent with the GPU's 9th percentile standing among all GPUs and reflects a pairing where the CPU's substantial processing power is largely wasted in this title due to GPU constraints.

FAQ — 4-6 Q&A pairs answerable from FACT PACK data

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

A: The highest measured average is 56 FPS at 1920x1080 with the Low preset. No other resolution or settings combination exceeds this figure, and the next closest is 45 FPS at 1440p Low.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The Arc B390 has an average benchmark score of 1482, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1463 (1.3% faster). The GeForce 800M scores 1460 (1.5% faster), the GT 625 OEM scores 1446 (2.5% faster), and the GT 710 scores 1443 (2.7% faster). All rivals are within a 2.7% performance delta.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 9900X the bottleneck in this configuration?

A: No. The CPU ranks in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 57498, while the GPU ranks in the 9th percentile. The measured FPS drops consistently as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck rather than a CPU limitation.

Q: What happens to frame rates when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same settings?

A: At Low settings, the average drops from 56 FPS to 33 FPS, a 23 FPS reduction. At Medium, it drops from 43 FPS to 26 FPS, a 17 FPS reduction. At High, it drops from 33 FPS to 19 FPS, a 14 FPS reduction. At Ultra, it drops from 31 FPS to 19 FPS, a 12 FPS reduction.

Q: Does the Arc B390 have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. The memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," meaning the GPU uses the system's main memory rather than dedicated graphics memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K Ultra?

A: Technically yes, but with an average of only 19 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The 4K Ultra result is identical to the 4K High result at 19 FPS, indicating the GPU is fully maxed out.

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

The resolution scaling behavior in this dataset is a textbook example of GPU-bound performance. From 1080p to 1440p, the Low preset drops from 56 to 45 FPS, a 19.6% reduction. From 1440p to 4K, Low drops from 45 to 33 FPS, a 26.7% reduction. The cumulative drop from 1080p Low to 4K Low is 23 FPS, or 41.1% of the original frame rate. For Ultra settings, the progression is 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K — a cumulative drop of 12 FPS, or 38.7%.

The percentage drops are not perfectly proportional to pixel count increases, which would suggest a 225% increase from 1080p to 4K. The fact that frame rates do not fall by that magnitude indicates that the system is not purely pixel-bound; there are other bottlenecks at play, most likely related to the CPU's ability to feed the GPU with draw calls and simulation data. The Ryzen 9 9900X, with its 12 cores and 24 threads, is exceptionally strong in this regard, and its single-thread performance (3dmark_single_thread score of 1286, Geekbench single-core score of 3010) ensures that the game's main thread is well-served.

However, the convergence of High and Ultra at 4K — both hitting 19 FPS — is a clear sign that the GPU has reached its absolute limit. When two different quality presets produce identical average frame rates, the GPU is no longer the differentiator; it is simply maxed out on compute or memory throughput. The Arc B390's system-shared memory and system-dependent bandwidth mean that at 4K, the memory subsystem is likely saturated, preventing any additional settings from improving visual quality without further degrading frame rates.

The scaling data also reveals that the CPU is never the limiting factor in this configuration. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the CPU workload in flight simulation is largely resolution-independent. Instead, every resolution increase produces a measurable FPS drop, which is the signature of GPU limitation. The Ryzen 9 9900X's 64 MB of L3 cache and 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth provide ample headroom for the game's simulation and physics threads, but none of that helps when the GPU cannot keep up with pixel rendering.

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

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal settings for this system depend heavily on the user's resolution and tolerance for frame rate dips. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 56 FPS, which is the only setting that approaches a smooth 60 FPS experience. The Medium preset at 43 FPS with a minimum of 37 FPS is playable for a flight simulator, where precision is often more important than high frame rates, and the visual improvements over Low are substantial. High at 33 FPS and Ultra at 31 FPS are both borderline, with frame rates that will feel stuttery in fast-moving scenarios or when panning across dense scenery.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset at 45 FPS is the only option that remains comfortably playable. Medium at 35 FPS with a minimum of 30 FPS is a viable compromise for users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness, but the 30 FPS minimum means there will be noticeable hitches in complex scenes. High at 26 FPS and Ultra at 25 FPS are both below the threshold for acceptable gameplay, and the data suggests that users should avoid these settings at this resolution. The 1440p Medium preset offers the best balance of visual fidelity and playability, with a 35 FPS average that is consistent enough for a slower-paced flight sim.

At 3840x2160, the situation is dire across the board. Low at 33 FPS is the only preset that exceeds 30 FPS, and even that is marginal. Medium at 26 FPS with a 22 FPS minimum will produce visible stuttering, and High and Ultra at 19 FPS are essentially unplayable for interactive use. For 4K, the only reasonable recommendation is Low, and even then, users should expect a compromised experience. The convergence of High and Ultra at 19 FPS at 4K suggests that there is no benefit to choosing Ultra over High at this resolution, as the GPU is already maxed out.

The best overall experience, weighing both visual quality and frame rate, is the 1080p Medium preset. It delivers a 43 FPS average with a 37 FPS minimum, which is smooth enough for most flight simulation scenarios, and it includes the additional visual features that Medium offers over Low. For users with higher-resolution displays, the 1440p Low preset at 45 FPS is the best compromise, while 4K users should accept that this configuration is not suited for the resolution and either lower to 1440p or reduce settings to Low.

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

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor built on TSMC's 4 nm process with the Zen 5 architecture (codenamed Granite Ridge). It runs at a 4.40 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.60 GHz, with a 120 W TDP and support for DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The CPU's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Its launch MSRP was $499, and it ranks in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 57498.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for simulating flight physics, weather systems, air traffic, and the game's complex world streaming logic. The Ryzen 9 9900X's multi-threaded capabilities are substantial: Cinebench R23 multicore score of 32172, Geekbench multicore score of 22174, and Passmark multithread score of 54643. These scores place it in the top tier of desktop processors, and its nearest rivals in the benchmark database — the AMD EPYC 9015 (-0.1% delta), AMD EPYC 7313 (+0.2%), Intel Core i9-14900 (-1.1%), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (-1.4%) — are all enterprise or high-end desktop parts with similar average scores.

However, the measured FPS data in this game shows that the CPU's power is largely untapped. The system's 3DMark 16-thread score of 12552 and single-thread score of 1286 indicate strong per-core performance, which is critical for Flight Simulator's main thread. The game is known to be sensitive to single-thread performance, and the Ryzen 9 9900X's 5.60 GHz boost clock and 2253 Cinebench R23 single-core score provide ample headroom. Yet the GPU bottleneck prevents this performance from manifesting in higher frame rates.

The evidence for CPU headroom is clear when examining the resolution scaling data. If the CPU were the limiting factor, frame rates would remain similar across resolutions, since the CPU's workload does not scale with pixel count. Instead, we see consistent FPS drops with each resolution increase, which indicates that the GPU is saturated while the CPU waits. The Ryzen 9 9900X's 3dmark_2_threads score of 2519 and 4-thread score of 4886 show that even lightly-threaded workloads are handled efficiently, but none of this matters when the Arc B390 can only push 19 FPS at 4K Ultra.

The CPU's 16,630 million transistors across a 2x 70.6 mm² die size, combined with its 64 MB L3 cache, make it exceptionally well-suited for the large, streaming data sets that Flight Simulator requires. The game loads terrain, airport data, and aircraft models continuously, and the 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures that data can flow quickly to the CPU. But with the GPU sharing system memory and having no dedicated VRAM, the memory subsystem becomes a shared resource that both CPU and GPU must contend for, potentially exacerbating the bottleneck in memory-intensive scenes.

In summary, the Ryzen 9 9900X is a top-tier CPU that ranks in the 92nd percentile, but in this pairing with the Arc B390, its capabilities are wasted. The GPU's 9th percentile ranking and sub-60 FPS results across all settings and resolutions mean that this is a configuration where the CPU is never the constraint. For users interested in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the data suggests that the Arc B390 must be replaced with a more capable discrete GPU to take advantage of the Ryzen 9 9900X's substantial processing power.