Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the measured results for the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D paired with the Intel Arc B390 place this configuration firmly at the lower end of the performance spectrum. The data reveals a system that is heavily constrained by its graphics processor, resulting in a playable experience only at the lowest settings and resolutions, while the 12-core CPU demonstrates its capability in synthetic workloads that far exceed what the integrated graphics can utilize.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate data shows a clear and predictable decline as resolution increases, but the magnitude of that decline is steep, indicating a severe bottleneck. At 1080p with Low settings, the system achieves an average of 56 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops the average to 45 FPS, a reduction of 11 frames. At 4K Low, the average falls further to 33 FPS, which is a 23 FPS drop from the 1080p baseline. This scaling pattern, where performance is nearly halved from 1080p to 4K, is typical of a scenario where the GPU is the limiting component; the rendering workload is scaling directly with the pixel count, and the graphics processor is unable to keep pace.

The trend is consistent across other settings presets. For High settings, the average frame rate moves from 33 FPS at 1080p, down to 26 FPS at 1440p, and finally to 19 FPS at 4K. Similarly, the Medium preset shows averages of 43, 35, and 26 FPS across the same resolution steps. The Ultra preset is the most punishing, with averages of 31 FPS at 1080p, 25 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K. The fact that 4K Ultra and 4K High both bottom out at 19 FPS suggests that the GPU has reached its absolute performance ceiling, and further increases in graphical fidelity have little to no impact because the hardware is already saturated.

The data indicates that the scaling from 1440p to 4K is more punishing than the step from 1080p to 1440p for the lower presets. For Low settings, the drop from 1080p to 1440p is 11 FPS, while the drop from 1440p to 4K is 12 FPS. For Medium, the drops are 8 FPS and 9 FPS, respectively. This suggests that the memory bandwidth and compute resources of the Intel Arc B390 are being overwhelmed at the higher resolutions, and the additional pixel workload at 4K has a marginally larger impact per step than the transition to 1440p. Consequently, the limiting component at all resolutions above 1080p Low is unquestionably the GPU, as the CPU's performance headroom is not being exercised.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B390 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, and its performance profile is the primary factor dictating this system's gaming capabilities. Its benchmark results are modest, with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1482, placing it in the 9th percentile of all GPUs. This score positions it in direct competition with very old discrete graphics cards, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GT 710, which are separated by a delta of only 1.3% and 2.7%, respectively. These rivals are from a different hardware era, and the comparison underscores the limited absolute performance of the Arc B390.

The GPU's clock speeds are specified with a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz. While the boost clock is reasonably high, the processor's memory configuration is a significant handicap. It uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and must rely on the system's DDR5 memory. The memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which introduces a major performance variable. In a flight simulator like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which streams vast amounts of terrain and texture data, the lack of dedicated, high-bandwidth VRAM is a critical weakness. The shared memory architecture forces the GPU to contend with the CPU for memory access, and the system's reliance on dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s is likely a severe bottleneck for texture streaming and frame buffer operations.

The GPU's compute capabilities are also limited, with 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but the raw throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS is insufficient for the complex shader workloads and physics calculations present in the simulator. The measured FPS data confirms this, as even at 1080p Low, the system only manages an average of 56 FPS, and it falls below 30 FPS at 4K for all settings. The GPU is the bottleneck in this configuration, and its performance is insufficient to provide a consistently smooth experience at any resolution above the lowest settings.

CPU Role

In stark contrast to the GPU, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a high-end desktop processor with substantial computational power. It features 12 cores and 24 threads based on the Zen 5 architecture, with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. Its synthetic benchmark scores are excellent, including a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 47737 and a single-core score of 6739. It achieves a 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs, competing directly with processors like the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, which has a delta of -0.6%, and the Intel Core i7-14700F, which has a delta of 2.1%. This indicates that the CPU is more than capable of handling the complex simulation and AI workloads of Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The CPU's large 128 MB of L3 cache is particularly beneficial for this genre, as it can hold a significant portion of the simulation's working set, reducing the need to access slower system memory. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and support for DDR5 memory also provide ample throughput for feeding data to both the CPU and the integrated GPU. However, the benchmark results show that this CPU power is largely untapped in this specific gaming scenario. The frame rates are consistently low, and the scaling with resolution is almost entirely linear, which is characteristic of a GPU-bound situation.

The data suggests that the Ryzen 9 9900X3D is not the limiting factor in this system. Even at 1080p Low, where the frame rate is highest, the CPU is likely idling or only partially utilized while the GPU is at its maximum capacity. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see frame rates that are more consistent across different resolutions, as the CPU's workload (game logic, draw calls) does not scale with resolution. Instead, the frame rates plummet as resolution increases, confirming that the GPU is the component that is being pushed to its limits. The CPU's performance is simply waiting for a more powerful graphics solution to take advantage of it.

How This Combo Ranks

Within the benchmark database, this combination of CPU and GPU achieves a rank of 2665 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 11% of all configurations, a position that is directly attributable to the GPU's low performance. The rank reflects the system's inability to produce high frame rates in a demanding title, regardless of the CPU's high percentile ranking.

The discrepancy between the CPU's performance and the combo's rank is stark. The CPU is in the 91st percentile of all processors, while the combo is in the 11th percentile of all combos. This indicates a massive performance imbalance. The Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a top-tier component that is being held back by the integrated graphics. In this configuration, the GPU is the sole determinant of the gaming experience, and its performance is so low that it negates the benefits of the powerful CPU.

This ranking suggests that for a user seeking to play Microsoft Flight Simulator, this specific combo is not a viable choice for a smooth experience. The data shows that even at the lowest settings, the frame rates are only borderline playable, and at higher settings, they become a slideshow. The combo's rank is a direct consequence of the GPU's 9th percentile performance, and it will not improve unless a discrete graphics card is paired with the CPU. The CPU is a future-proofing investment, but the current integrated graphics solution severely limits the overall system's gaming capability.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows that at 4K, the average frame rates are 19 FPS on High and Ultra, 26 FPS on Medium, and 33 FPS on Low. These low frame rates indicate that 4K is not a playable resolution for this configuration in this game.

Q: What is the best resolution and settings combination for this system?

A: The highest average frame rate is 56 FPS, which is achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured configuration that reaches a frame rate that can be considered smooth, as all other options fall below this threshold.

Q: How does the CPU's performance compare to its direct rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D has an average benchmark score of 54762. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, has an average score of 55093, which is a -0.6% delta. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K has a score of 54053, a 1.3% delta, showing the AMD processor is competitive in synthetic tests.

Q: Is this system's performance limited by the CPU or the GPU?

A: The benchmark results indicate the system is entirely GPU-limited. The frame rates drop significantly as resolution increases, which is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck, while the CPU's high benchmark scores suggest it is not being fully utilized.

Q: How does the Intel Arc B390's performance compare to older graphics cards?

A: The Arc B390's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1482 is only 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX's score of 1463 and 2.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM's score of 1446, placing it in a similar performance class.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves an average of 56 FPS, while the Ultra preset achieves an average of 31 FPS. This represents a 25 FPS decrease in average frame rate from the lowest to the highest settings.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only configuration that provides a playable experience is the Low preset at 1920x1080, which yields an average of 56 FPS. This is the sole data point that approaches the 60 FPS target. All other settings and resolution combinations fall short of this, with the next best being 45 FPS at 2560x1440 on Low. The data suggests that users should prioritize resolution over graphical fidelity, as the Low preset at 1080p is significantly faster than the Medium preset at 1080p, which only achieves 43 FPS.

The Medium preset at 1080p, with an average of 43 FPS and a minimum of 37 FPS, could be considered for users who prefer visual quality over a high frame rate, but it is still well below the smoothness of the Low preset. The High and Ultra presets at any resolution are not recommended, as they all fall below 35 FPS, with 4K variants dropping to 19 FPS. These settings should be avoided if a responsive and fluid simulation is the goal. The data clearly indicates that to get the best performance from this system, users must compromise heavily on visual settings. The Low preset at 1080p is the only viable option for a playable experience, as the GPU cannot handle the demands of higher quality settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is a detailed breakdown of the measured average frame rates for this configuration.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the results are as follows:

• The Low preset provides an average of 33 FPS.
• The Medium preset provides an average of 26 FPS, with a minimum of 22 FPS and a maximum of 30 FPS.
• The High preset provides an average of 19 FPS.
• The Ultra preset provides an average of 19 FPS.

At 2560x1440 (1440p), the results are as follows:

• The Low preset provides an average of 45 FPS.
• The Medium preset provides an average of 35 FPS, with a minimum of 30 FPS and a maximum of 40 FPS.
• The High preset provides an average of 26 FPS.
• The Ultra preset provides an average of 25 FPS.

At 1920x1080 (1080p), the results are as follows:

• The Low preset provides the best result with an average of 56 FPS.
• The Medium preset provides an average of 43 FPS, with a minimum of 37 FPS and a maximum of 50 FPS.
• The High preset provides an average of 33 FPS.
• The Ultra preset provides an average of 31 FPS.

These numbers show a consistent and steep performance drop as resolution and settings increase. The data only provides minimum and maximum frame rates for the Medium preset at each resolution, which shows a range of 22-30 FPS at 4K, 30-40 FPS at 1440p, and 37-50 FPS at 1080p. For all other presets, only the average FPS is provided. The overall picture is that this system is only capable of a marginally playable experience at the lowest settings and resolution, and any attempt to increase quality or resolution will result in frame rates that are below 45 FPS.