Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a combination that places near the bottom of the database for Microsoft Flight Simulator. With a combo rank of 1756 out of 1795 tested configurations, this system is positioned in the 2nd percentile of all tested combos, meaning it outperforms only a tiny fraction of the field. The data shows a system that can run the simulation, but only under specific conditions and with significant compromises on visual fidelity and resolution.

FAQ

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

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 45.4, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the measured data that approaches playable smoothness.

Q: Can this system handle 4K resolution in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: Technically yes, but the results are not practical. At 3840x2160, the average FPS ranges from 27.9 at Low settings down to 13.3 at High settings and 14.8 at Ultra. These frame rates are far below what is needed for a smooth flight simulation experience.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in raw benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 8713. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon 550X, scores 8749, which is 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8671, which is 0.5% lower. The performance delta between these cards is negligible.

Q: What is the CPU's standing relative to other processors in the database?

A: The Ryzen 5 2600 sits in the 77th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 19616. It trails the AMD Ryzen 5 7530U by 0.6% and the Intel Core i7-10700F by 0.7%, while leading the Intel Core i5-1345U by 0.4%.

Q: Is there a measurable difference between High and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: Yes, the difference is notable. At 1920x1080, High settings produce an average of 29.9 FPS, while Ultra settings drop to 25.2 FPS. That is a reduction of roughly 15% in frame rate for the jump in visual quality.

Q: What is the memory configuration of this GPU?

A: The GPU features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2001 MHz, which translates to 8 Gbps effective.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary constraint in this pairing for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's 4 GB of VRAM is a limiting factor, especially at higher resolutions and settings where the simulator's detailed terrain and aircraft models demand more memory than is available. The data reflects this; at 2560x1440 with High settings, the average FPS is 22.1, while at 1920x1080 with High settings, it rises to 29.9. The jump to 3840x2160 at High settings collapses to 13.3 FPS, suggesting the card is overwhelmed by the pixel count and texture data.

The GPU's clock speeds are set at a base of 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz. These clocks are modest by modern standards, and the card's raw compute throughput is limited to 2.984 TFLOPS FP32. In a simulation that is heavily reliant on continuous geometry and texture streaming, this compute capacity is insufficient for high-fidelity rendering. The benchmark scores show the GPU in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with its Passmark G3D score of 7880 placing it in direct competition with the RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and the Radeon 550X (8749). The performance gaps are tiny, meaning the GTX 1650 is firmly in entry-level territory.

At 1080p, the GPU can keep up with the CPU's output, but at higher resolutions it becomes the bottleneck. The drop from Low to Medium settings at 1440p is a loss of 10.8 FPS (from 38.8 to 28.0), and the drop from Medium to High is another 5.9 FPS (to 22.1). This linear decline shows that the GPU's memory bandwidth and fill rate are being saturated by the simulator's rendering workload.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is ranked 1756 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 2.2% of all configurations in the database. The ranking indicates that nearly every other tested pairing of CPU and GPU delivers a better experience in this title.

The CPU itself is not the weak link in the ranking; it performs in the 77th percentile across all processors. The problem is the GPU's 43rd percentile standing. When a mid-tier CPU is paired with an entry-level GPU, the system's overall capability is dragged down to the lowest tier. The data suggests that this combo is only suitable for the most basic playable settings, and even then, it is at the edge of what is considered acceptable for a flight simulator, which typically benefits from higher frame rates for smooth camera panning and instrument readability.

The ranking also implies that users with this combo are likely to experience stutters and frame drops in dense areas, such as major airports or cities with high autogen detail. The measured FPS data does not include minimum FPS values, but the low averages indicate that the system has no headroom for sudden increases in rendering complexity.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data reveals a predictable pattern: performance scales almost linearly with resolution and settings. At 1920x1080, the combo achieves playable frame rates only on Low settings, with an average of 45.4 FPS. Medium settings drop to 35.5 FPS, High to 29.9 FPS, and Ultra to 25.2 FPS. The delta between Low and Ultra is 20.2 FPS, which is a significant hit to smoothness.

Moving to 2560x1440, the situation worsens. Low settings still offer a usable 38.8 FPS, but Medium drops to 28.0 FPS. High settings fall to 22.1 FPS, and Ultra to 23.6 FPS. Interestingly, Ultra is slightly faster than High at this resolution, though both are below the threshold for a smooth experience. This anomaly could be due to specific scene rendering differences, but the overall trend is clear: the GPU lacks the bandwidth for 1440p at higher quality presets.

At 3840x2160, the system is essentially unusable for flight simulation. Low settings produce 27.9 FPS, Medium drops to 21.7 FPS, High falls to 13.3 FPS, and Ultra manages only 14.8 FPS. The gap between Low and High at 4K is 14.6 FPS, showing that even the lowest preset cannot rescue the experience. The 4 GB VRAM is likely being exceeded at this resolution, leading to texture thrashing and severe frame rate degradation.

The most viable configuration from the data is 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only measured row where the average FPS exceeds 40, which is the minimum threshold for a passable experience in a slow-paced simulator. All other configurations fall below this line.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600 provides a solid foundation for this system, though its age is showing. With 6 cores and 12 threads, it offers decent multi-threading for the simulator's background tasks, such as weather simulation and AI traffic. The base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz are sufficient to feed the GTX 1650 at lower resolutions, but they are not high enough to compensate for the GPU's weaknesses.

The CPU's benchmark results show it is a capable processor. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 11186, and its single-core score is 1579. These scores place it in the 77th percentile of all CPUs, meaning it outperforms a majority of processors in general tasks. Its Passmark single-thread score of 2239 is adequate for the simulator's main thread, which handles the primary rendering loop.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for physics, flight model, and scenery loading. The Ryzen 5 2600 can handle these tasks, but the GPU's inability to render frames quickly means the CPU often sits idle waiting for the next frame. This is a classic case of an imbalanced pairing; the CPU has more potential than the GPU can utilize. The data shows that at 1080p Low, the CPU can push the GPU to its limit, but at higher settings, the GPU is the sole bottleneck.

The CPU's memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s is adequate for the simulator's data streaming, but it is not exceptional. The 16 MB of shared L3 cache is modest, which can cause occasional hitches when the simulator needs to access large terrain patches. Despite this, the CPU is not the primary reason for the low frame rates; it is simply mismatched with an underpowered GPU.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the only sensible configuration for this combo is 1920x1080 with Low settings. This yields an average of 45.4 FPS, which is the only result above 40 FPS in the entire dataset. This should provide a playable, if not perfectly smooth, experience for visual flight rules flying and general exploration.

Avoid Medium settings at 1080p, which drop to 35.5 FPS. While this is still technically playable, the frame rate is low enough to cause judder during fast maneuvers or when panning the camera. High settings at 1080p (29.9 FPS) and Ultra (25.2 FPS) should be avoided entirely; the visual gains are not worth the loss of fluidity.

At 1440p, the situation is worse. Only Low settings (38.8 FPS) approach playability, but the average is still below the 1080p Low result. Medium and above at 1440p are not recommended. 4K is out of the question; even Low settings at 4K produce 27.9 FPS, which is a slideshow in a simulator that requires precise control.

For users with this hardware, the practical advice is to lock the resolution to 1920x1080 and the preset to Low. If the frame rate is still not satisfactory, consider reducing the render scaling or turning off specific features like AI traffic, though those settings are not measured in this dataset. The data clearly indicates that this combo is entry-level and must be treated as such. Pushing it beyond 1080p Low will result in a frustrating experience.