Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Intel Arc B570 pairing in Microsoft Flight Simulator presents a dataset that clearly favors resolution-specific adjustments. The measured results show a system that is highly capable at lower resolutions but becomes progressively more constrained as pixel count increases. This analysis breaks down the raw numbers, contextualizes them against the hardware's broader benchmark profiles, and provides actionable settings guidance based solely on the provided data.

FAQ

Q: What is the single best performance metric for this CPU-GPU combo at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo achieves an average of 86 FPS, which is the highest average frame rate recorded across all tested resolutions and settings.

Q: How significant is the performance drop when moving from 1080p to 4K at Medium settings?

A: At Medium settings, the average frame rate falls from 67 FPS at 1920x1080 to 40 FPS at 3840x2160. This represents a 27 FPS reduction, or a 40.3% decrease in average performance.

Q: At which resolution does the Ultra preset become unplayable based on the average FPS?

A: At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the average FPS drops to 28. This is the lowest average score in the entire dataset, indicating a severely constrained experience at that combination.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B570's benchmark percentile suggest it is a high-end or mid-range GPU?

A: The Intel Arc B570 sits in the 65th percentile against all GPUs in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score of 20556 places it in the mid-range tier, closely rivaling the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile which scores 20534 (a 0.1% delta).

Q: What is the CPU's percentile ranking compared to all other processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is in the 91st percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 54762. This places it significantly higher in the overall hierarchy than the GPU is in its respective field.

Q: Is there a measurable frame time variance at 1440p Medium settings?

A: Yes, at 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the dataset includes a minimum FPS of 46 and a maximum FPS of 62. This provides a 16 FPS range around the 54 FPS average, indicating some variability in frame pacing.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture (Granite Ridge). It operates with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. This high core count and clock speed capability drive its strong synthetic performance. For instance, its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 47737, and its single-core score is 6739. The data suggests this CPU is not the primary bottleneck in most of the measured Flight Simulator scenarios.

The CPU's 128 MB of L3 cache is a notable feature for gaming, and its 91st percentile ranking against all CPUs reinforces its high-end status. In the context of Flight Simulator, which is known for complex physics and world simulation, the processor's capability is evident. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the system reaches 86 FPS. This is the highest score in the dataset, and it demonstrates that the CPU can feed the GPU effectively when the graphical load is light. The CPU's PassMark multi-thread score of 56154 and single-thread score of 4646 support its ability to handle the game's simulation threads.

However, the CPU's role becomes less dominant as the resolution increases. Comparing the 1080p Low score of 86 FPS to the 1440p Low score of 69 FPS, there is a 17 FPS drop. Moving to 4K Low, the score falls further to 51 FPS. This pattern indicates that while the CPU is strong, the system's overall performance is increasingly dictated by the GPU's rendering capabilities at higher pixel densities. The CPU has ample headroom; the data shows it is the GPU that begins to struggle.

The nearest rivals for the 9900X3D include the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, which has an average score of 55093 and a delta of -0.6%, meaning the 9900X3D is slightly behind. It is 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K. These close margins suggest that the 9900X3D's performance in this game aligns with expectations for a high-end processor, but the measured FPS results are more heavily influenced by the GPU pairing.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B570, based on the Xe2-HPG architecture (Battlemage), is equipped with 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus. This configuration yields a memory bandwidth of 380.0 GB/s. The GPU's base and boost clocks are both set at 2500 MHz. Its synthetic performance is modest; it sits in the 65th percentile for all GPUs. Its PassMark G3D score is 14195, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 2649. These numbers help contextualize its 1080p and 1440p performance in Flight Simulator.

The GPU's role is the limiting factor in this combo. At 4K Ultra, the system averages only 28 FPS. This is a direct indicator that the Arc B570 is being overwhelmed by the combination of high resolution and maximum graphical detail. The GPU's 10 GB VRAM and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for lower settings but become strained at higher presets. The data shows a clear progression: at 1080p, the GPU can handle Ultra at 48 FPS, but at 4K, that same preset drops to 28 FPS.

The nearest rivals for the Arc B570 include the Intel Arc A750, which has a delta of -0.1%, meaning the two are essentially tied in average benchmark score. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is 0.1% ahead. This places the B570 in a specific performance class. In Flight Simulator, this class of GPU appears suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming. The 4K results, particularly at High and Ultra settings (30 FPS and 28 FPS respectively), suggest that users should avoid those configurations if they desire smooth gameplay.

The GPU's memory configuration is also relevant. The 160-bit bus width and 10 GB capacity are mid-range features. While 380.0 GB/s of bandwidth is respectable, the data indicates it is not enough to maintain high frame rates at 4K with heavy detail. The measured FPS at 4K Medium (40 FPS) is barely playable, whereas the 4K Low setting (51 FPS) provides a more acceptable experience, showing the GPU's performance ceiling is firmly in the lower-to-mid settings tier at that resolution.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS rows, the optimal settings depend entirely on the target resolution and desired frame rate. There is no single "best" preset across all scenarios. Instead, the data suggests a tiered approach.

For 1920x1080, the High preset yields 50 FPS on average, while Ultra yields 48 FPS. The difference is only 2 FPS. Given this negligible gap, the Ultra preset is arguably the better choice for 1080p users, as it provides the maximum visual fidelity for nearly the same performance cost. If a higher frame rate is preferred, the Medium preset at 67 FPS offers a significant jump of 17 FPS over High and 19 FPS over Ultra, at the expense of some detail.

At 2560x1440, the data shows a more distinct trade-off. The High preset averages 41 FPS, which is on the lower end of playable. The Medium preset averages 54 FPS, a 13 FPS improvement over High. This makes Medium the recommended preset for 1440p, as it offers a much smoother experience. The Ultra preset at 39 FPS is not recommended, as it is both slower than High and provides diminishing returns. The Low preset at 69 FPS is the only option that approaches high refresh rate territory, but it sacrifices significant visual quality.

For 3840x2160, the situation is more challenging. The Ultra preset is not viable, with an average of 28 FPS. The High preset is only marginally better at 30 FPS. The Medium preset at 40 FPS is the first playable option, but still not ideal. The Low preset at 51 FPS provides the best balance for 4K gaming on this hardware. Therefore, the recommendation for 4K is to use Low settings. If visual quality is paramount, Medium is the highest acceptable preset, but users should expect a frame rate in the 40s.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D and Intel Arc B570 ranks 2406 out of 2996 tested combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 20th percentile of all combos (calculated as 2406/2996). This is a low ranking, which is surprising given the CPU's high percentile (91st) but is explained by the GPU's lower percentile (65th).

The ranking suggests that while the CPU is top-tier, the overall system performance is dragged down by the GPU in this particular game. The data indicates that the CPU is not the bottleneck; the GPU is. This is a classic case of an unbalanced pairing for a specific workload. In a game like Flight Simulator, which can be both CPU and GPU intensive depending on the scene, the measured results show that the GPU's limitations at higher resolutions significantly impact the combo's overall standing.

Compared to other combos in the database, this pairing is in the bottom 20%. This does not mean it is a poor system for all games, but for Microsoft Flight Simulator specifically, the data shows it struggles to compete with combinations that feature more powerful GPUs. The CPU's high benchmark scores (e.g., Cinebench R23 multi-core of 47737) are not enough to overcome the GPU's 4K performance deficit. The ranking is a direct reflection of the measured FPS data, which shows the system is best suited for 1080p and 1440p gaming.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following is a complete breakdown of the measured average FPS, with available min/max data, for each resolution and settings preset.

3840x2160 (4K):

• Ultra: Average 28 FPS. This is the lowest recorded average in the dataset.
• High: Average 30 FPS.
• Medium: Average 40 FPS, with a minimum of 34 FPS and a maximum of 46 FPS.
• Low: Average 51 FPS.

2560x1440 (1440p):

• Ultra: Average 39 FPS.
• High: Average 41 FPS.
• Medium: Average 54 FPS, with a minimum of 46 FPS and a maximum of 62 FPS.
• Low: Average 69 FPS.

1920x1080 (1080p):

• Ultra: Average 48 FPS.
• High: Average 50 FPS.
• Medium: Average 67 FPS, with a minimum of 57 FPS and a maximum of 77 FPS.
• Low: Average 86 FPS. This is the highest average FPS recorded in the entire dataset.

The data shows a consistent trend: lowering the settings preset increases FPS at every resolution. The min/max values for the Medium preset at each resolution provide insight into frame time consistency. At 1080p, the range is 20 FPS (57-77). At 1440p, the range is 16 FPS (46-62). At 4K, the range is 12 FPS (34-46). This indicates that while the average FPS decreases with higher resolution, the relative variance also decreases, suggesting a more stable, albeit lower, frame rate at 4K.

Resolution Scaling

The performance scaling from 1080p to 4K is the clearest indicator of the system's bottleneck. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 86 at 1080p to 69 at 1440p, a 17 FPS reduction. It then drops to 51 at 4K, a further 18 FPS reduction. This represents a 40.7% decrease in FPS from 1080p to 4K (calculated as (86-51)/86).

At Medium settings, the drop is from 67 FPS at 1080p to 54 FPS at 1440p (a 13 FPS drop), and then to 40 FPS at 4K (a 14 FPS drop). This is a 40.3% decrease from 1080p to 4K. At High settings, the FPS goes from 50 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p, and finally to 30 at 4K, a 40% decrease. The scaling is remarkably consistent, with a roughly 40% performance loss when moving from 1080p to 4K.

This consistent scaling pattern strongly suggests that the system is GPU-limited at all settings. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the FPS would likely remain more constant as resolution increases, because the CPU workload would not scale linearly with pixel count. However, the data shows a clear and proportional FPS drop with resolution, which is characteristic of a GPU that is being pushed to its limits. The 10 GB VRAM and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth of the Arc B570 are likely the key constraints, as 4K resolution requires significantly more memory bandwidth and capacity. The CPU, with its high benchmark scores, is providing frames as fast as the GPU can render them, but the GPU's rendering capacity diminishes quickly as the pixel workload increases.