Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 9 9900X scores 57,498 in the average benchmark, which places it 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 9015 (57,555) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7313 (57,399). Against Intel competition, it trails the Core i9-14900 by 1.1% and the Xeon Platinum 8260M by 1.4%.

Q: What is the Intel Arc B570's performance percentile and how does it stack up against similar GPUs?

A: The Arc B570 sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 20,556. It is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534, 0.1% ahead) and the Intel Arc A750 (20,582, 0.1% behind), while beating the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M by 0.4% and trailing the AMD Radeon R9 M390X by 0.5%.

Q: What frame rates does this combination achieve at 1080p with Medium settings?

A: At 1920x1080 with Medium settings, the system delivers an average of 67 FPS, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS. This makes it the second-fastest preset at this resolution, behind only Low settings.

Q: How much performance is lost when moving from 1080p to 4K at High settings?

A: At High settings, the average frame rate drops from 50 FPS at 1920x1080 to 41 FPS at 2560x1440, and finally to 30 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 40% reduction in average FPS from 1080p to 4K.

Q: Does the Ryzen 9 9900X's single-thread performance support flight simulation workloads?

A: The CPU scores 1,286 in 3DMark single-thread and 2,253 in Cinebench R23 single-core, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4,672. These results place it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, indicating strong per-core performance that benefits simulation titles.

Q: What is the combo's overall ranking in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The combination of the Ryzen 9 9900X and Intel Arc B570 ranks 2,406th out of 2,996 tested combos in this game, placing it in the lower portion of the database for this specific title.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570 brings 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 2375 MHz, translating to 19 Gbps effective. The GPU's base and boost clocks are both set to 2500 MHz, which is a modest clock speed for a modern graphics card. The shading units number 2,304, paired with 144 texture mapping units and 80 raster output units. The 18 ray tracing cores provide hardware-accelerated ray tracing support, though the measured FPS data suggests that enabling such features would push performance down further.

This GPU configuration produces a pixel rate of 200.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 360.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 11.52 TFLOPS, while FP16 reaches 23.04 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. These figures place the Arc B570 in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 20,556. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A750, scores 20,582, making the performance difference essentially negligible. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is also within 0.1%, which contextualizes the card's position in the market.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the measured data shows that the GPU becomes the limiting factor as resolution increases. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average frame rate drops to 28 FPS, which is below the threshold for smooth gameplay. The 10 GB VRAM capacity is sufficient for this game at the tested settings, as flight simulators typically do not require extreme memory allocations. However, the GPU's raw compute throughput at 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 appears to be the bottleneck at higher resolutions and quality presets.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases. At Low settings, the average frame rate drops from 86 FPS at 1920x1080 to 69 FPS at 2560x1440, and further to 51 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 40.7% reduction from 1080p to 4K, which is a substantial loss but not as steep as what occurs at higher quality presets.

At Medium settings, the scaling shows a similar trend: 67 FPS at 1080p, 54 FPS at 1440p, and 40 FPS at 4K. The minimum frame rate at 1440p is 46 FPS, while at 4K it drops to 34 FPS. The maximum values scale from 77 FPS at 1080p down to 62 FPS at 1440p and 46 FPS at 4K. This indicates that the GPU is increasingly stressed as pixel count grows, with the frame time variance also increasing.

High settings show an even steeper drop: 50 FPS at 1080p, 41 FPS at 1440p, and 30 FPS at 4K. The 4K result at High is only 2 FPS higher than the Ultra preset at the same resolution, suggesting that the GPU is nearing its performance ceiling. Ultra settings produce 48 FPS at 1080p, 39 FPS at 1440p, and 28 FPS at 4K, with the spread between High and Ultra shrinking as resolution increases.

The resolution scaling behavior indicates that the limiting component shifts depending on the preset. At Low settings, the CPU's strong single-thread performance (3DMark single-thread score of 1,286) allows the GPU to work at higher utilization, resulting in 86 FPS at 1080p. As settings increase, the GPU's compute resources become saturated, and the frame rate drops more sharply with resolution. This is characteristic of a system where the GPU is the primary bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the CPU remains capable of feeding frames at lower resolutions.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system delivers its highest frame rates. Low settings produce an average of 86 FPS, which is the fastest result across all tested configurations. Medium settings yield 67 FPS average, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS. High settings average 50 FPS, while Ultra settings average 48 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 1080p is only 2 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns from the highest quality preset.

Moving to 2560x1440, the frame rates drop across all settings. Low settings average 69 FPS, which remains playable. Medium settings average 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS. High settings average 41 FPS, and Ultra settings average 39 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1440p is 30 FPS, which is slightly larger than the 38 FPS gap at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, performance becomes marginal. Low settings average 51 FPS, which is the only preset at 4K that exceeds 50 FPS. Medium settings average 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS. High settings average 30 FPS, and Ultra settings average 28 FPS. The latter two presets fall below the 30 FPS threshold, making them unsuitable for smooth gameplay at this resolution.

The data shows a clear pattern: the system is capable of 60+ FPS at 1080p with Low or Medium settings, but drops below 60 FPS at 1440p with any preset. At 4K, only Low settings maintain an average above 50 FPS. The minimum frame rates at Medium settings follow the same trend, with 57 FPS at 1080p, 46 FPS at 1440p, and 34 FPS at 4K.

Settings Recommendations

For players targeting 1920x1080, the Medium preset offers the best balance of visual quality and performance. The 67 FPS average with a 57 FPS minimum ensures consistent frame delivery, while the 77 FPS maximum provides headroom for less demanding scenes. High settings at 50 FPS average are playable but may experience stutters in dense areas, and Ultra's 48 FPS average does not justify the additional visual load.

At 2560x1440, Medium settings again provide the most viable experience. The 54 FPS average with a 46 FPS minimum is borderline but workable for a flight simulator, where precise frame timing is less critical than in fast-paced action games. Low settings at 69 FPS offer a smoother experience if visual fidelity can be sacrificed. High and Ultra at 41 and 39 FPS respectively are too close to the 30 FPS threshold to recommend.

For 3840x2160, Low settings are the only sensible choice, delivering 51 FPS average. Medium settings at 40 FPS are playable but will struggle during complex scenery loads, as evidenced by the 34 FPS minimum. High and Ultra at 30 and 28 FPS respectively fall below the playability threshold and should be avoided.

Across all resolutions, the Medium preset consistently provides the best experience per the measured rows. It maintains a minimum frame rate above 30 FPS at every resolution, while offering significantly better visual quality than Low settings. The data indicates that the GPU's 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is the limiting factor at higher presets, so users should prioritize resolution over settings when the system is constrained.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge. It operates on the AMD Socket AM5 platform with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The CPU's 64 MB of L3 cache, distributed as 1 MB of L2 per core and 80 KB of L1 per core, provides ample fast storage for simulation data. Its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth over dual-channel DDR5 supports the game's streaming requirements.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 9900X demonstrates strong multithreaded performance: Cinebench R23 multicore scores 32,172, while Geekbench multicore reaches 22,174. Single-thread results are equally impressive, with Cinebench R23 single-core at 2,253 and Geekbench single-core at 3,010. The 3DMark suite shows scaling from 1,286 in single-thread to 13,929 in max-threads, indicating efficient core utilization.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant at lower resolutions. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves 86 FPS, which is likely CPU-bound given the GPU's modest compute capabilities. The 9900X's 92nd percentile ranking among all CPUs supports this interpretation. However, as resolution increases, the GPU becomes the bottleneck, as evidenced by the frame rate drops at 1440p and 4K.

The CPU's nearest rivals in average benchmark score are all server or high-end desktop parts: the AMD EPYC 9015 (57,555, 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i9-14900 (58,115, 1.1% ahead), and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M (58,323, 1.4% ahead). The 9900X's 12 cores and 24 threads are well-suited for the game's background simulation tasks, while its strong single-thread performance handles the main rendering thread efficiently.

The measured FPS data suggests that the CPU is not the limiting factor in this configuration, except perhaps at the lowest resolution and settings. The transition from 86 FPS at 1080p Low to 69 FPS at 1440p Low indicates a 19.8% drop that is primarily GPU-driven. The CPU's 5.60 GHz boost clock and 4 nm process node (with 16,630 million transistors across 2x 70.6 mm² dies) ensure that it can feed the GPU adequately at all tested settings.