Microsoft Flight Simulator

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 5 3600 compare to its closest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 3600 scores an average benchmark of 18,129, which is effectively tied with the Intel Core i5-11400 (18,150, deltaPct -0.1) and the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (18,158, deltaPct -0.2). The data shows a near three-way statistical dead heat at the top of this performance tier.

Q: What is the GPU's standing relative to all tested graphics cards?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 8,713. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, scores 8,746 (deltaPct -0.4), meaning the desktop GTX 1650 is essentially on par with that mobile part.

Q: Which resolution and settings combination yields the highest average frame rate?

A: The highest measured average FPS is 46.1, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is 17.2% higher than the next-best combination, which is 1920x1080 Medium at 34.9 FPS.

Q: How does the game perform at 4K Ultra compared to 1080p Ultra?

A: At 3840x2160 Ultra, the average FPS is 18.4, while at 1920x1080 Ultra it is 26.8. This represents a 31.3% drop in frame rate when moving from 1080p to 4K at the same preset.

Q: What is the overall rank of this CPU-GPU combination in this game?

A: The combo ranks 1,753rd out of 1,795 tested combinations in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 2.3% of all tested configurations.

Q: Does the CPU's multi-threaded performance suggest a bottleneck in this game?

A: The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 15,045, while its single-core score is 2,124. Given that the game's frame rates drop significantly with resolution increases, the data points toward the GPU as the limiting factor rather than the CPU.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture with a TU117 chip, using a 12 nm process. Its memory configuration is particularly modest for a flight simulator: 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost of 1665 MHz, and it delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's role is decisive. The measured data shows that at 1920x1080 Low, the system achieves 46.1 FPS, but at 1920x1080 Ultra, it falls to 26.8 FPS. This 41.9% performance penalty from preset changes at the same resolution strongly indicates that the GPU's shading units (896) and texture mapping units (56) are being saturated by the game's visual complexity.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical constraint. Flight simulators are notorious for loading large textures for terrain, aircraft, and scenery. At 3840x2160 High, the average FPS collapses to 13.7, which is unplayable. Even at 2560x1440 Medium, the frame rate is 28.1, suggesting the GPU is struggling to maintain fluid rendering. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are simply insufficient for higher resolutions in this title.

The GPU's percentile rank of 43 versus all GPUs, combined with its average benchmark score of 8,713, places it in the lower-middle tier of graphics hardware. The nearest rival data shows it is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon 550X and NVIDIA Quadro P2200, indicating that this is not an outlier but rather a representative mid-range part from its era.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data reveals a clear pattern of resolution scaling. At 1920x1080 Low, the system produces 46.1 FPS. Moving to 2560x1440 Low drops this to 39.5 FPS (a 14.3% decrease), and at 3840x2160 Low it falls to 28.3 FPS (a 38.6% decrease from 1080p). This scaling is not linear — the 4K penalty is disproportionately severe.

For the Medium preset, the progression is 34.9 FPS at 1080p, 28.1 at 1440p, and 23.1 at 4K. The percentage drop from 1080p to 1440p is 19.5%, while from 1440p to 4K it is 17.8%. This relatively consistent degradation suggests that the GPU is being pushed progressively harder as pixel count increases.

The High preset shows 29.7 FPS at 1080p, 20.0 at 1440p, and 13.7 at 4K. The 32.7% drop from 1080p to 1440p and the 31.5% drop from 1440p to 4K indicate that High settings amplify the GPU's workload significantly more than Medium or Low. Ultra settings show 26.8 FPS at 1080p, 18.4 at 1440p, and 18.4 at 4K — the identical 1440p and 4K scores are notable, suggesting that at these extreme settings, the GPU is hitting a hard performance ceiling regardless of resolution.

This data implies that the limiting component is the GPU. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect frame rates to remain relatively flat across resolutions. Instead, the consistent and substantial drops with increasing resolution point squarely at the GTX 1650's rendering capabilities.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data provides clear guidance for playable settings. At 1920x1080, the Low preset delivers 46.1 FPS, which is the only configuration in the entire dataset that exceeds 40 FPS. The Medium preset at 1080p yields 34.9 FPS, which is still playable for a flight simulator where the pace is slower than action titles.

For a balance between visual fidelity and performance, 1920x1080 Medium appears to be the sweet spot. The 34.9 FPS average is 17.5% higher than the High preset's 29.7 FPS at the same resolution, yet offers a meaningful improvement over Low in terms of scenery detail. The jump from Medium to High costs 5.2 FPS (14.9% reduction), which may not be worth the visual gains for most users.

At 2560x1440, the data shows that only Low settings (39.5 FPS) approach playability. Medium drops to 28.1 FPS, and High falls to 20.0 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1440p produces 18.4 FPS, which is identical to the 4K Ultra score — a strong indication that the GPU is completely overwhelmed at this quality level.

For 4K, none of the measured settings yield acceptable frame rates. The best 4K result is Low at 28.3 FPS, which is borderline at best. Given the flight simulator genre's tolerance for slightly lower frame rates due to its slower pacing, 4K Low might be usable, but 4K Medium (23.1 FPS) and above are likely to feel sluggish.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the settings ladder shows a clear progression: Low produces 46.1 FPS, Medium 34.9, High 29.7, and Ultra 26.8. The difference between Low and Medium is 11.2 FPS, while the gap between Medium and High is 5.2 FPS, and High to Ultra is only 2.9 FPS. This diminishing returns pattern suggests that the GPU's resources are being consumed by increasingly marginal visual enhancements at the higher presets.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress: Low achieves 39.5 FPS, Medium 28.1, High 20.0, and Ultra 18.4. The drop from Medium to High is 8.1 FPS (28.8% reduction), which is a significant hit for one preset step. The High to Ultra gap is only 1.6 FPS, indicating that Ultra adds little extra cost over High at this resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results are: Low 28.3 FPS, Medium 23.1, High 13.7, and Ultra 18.4. The High preset is an anomaly — it produces lower FPS than Ultra (13.7 vs 18.4), which is a counterintuitive result in the data. This could indicate a specific scene complexity issue or measurement variance, but the data as presented shows Ultra outperforming High at 4K.

Across all resolutions, Low settings consistently provide the highest frame rates, with the 1080p Low result (46.1 FPS) being the only configuration to reach near-60 FPS territory. The data shows that this hardware combination is best suited to 1080p gaming with conservative settings.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture (Matisse codename), manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It operates at a base clock of 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, and its 32 MB of shared L3 cache provides substantial memory locality for game workloads.

In synthetic benchmarks, the CPU shows strong multi-threaded performance: Cinebench R23 multi-core scores 15,045, while single-core scores 2,124. The 3DMark tests show scaling from 696 (single-thread) to 4,605 (16-thread), indicating good thread utilization. The PassMark multi-thread score of 17,700 further confirms this processor's capability in threaded workloads.

However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's influence on the measured frame rates appears secondary to the GPU. The evidence lies in the resolution scaling: if the CPU were the primary bottleneck, we would expect similar FPS across different resolutions at the same settings. Instead, we see dramatic drops (e.g., 46.1 FPS at 1080p Low vs 28.3 FPS at 4K Low), which is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario.

The CPU's percentile rank of 76 versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18,129, places it in the upper quartile of processors. Its nearest rivals — the Intel Core i5-11400 (deltaPct -0.1) and AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (deltaPct -0.2) — are within a fraction of a percent, suggesting the 3600 is well-matched to its peers. The data indicates that the Ryzen 5 3600 provides sufficient processing headroom for this game, and the GTX 1650 is the component that determines the experience.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 1,753rd out of 1,795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 2.3% of all configurations. This is a remarkably low ranking for a CPU that sits at the 76th percentile, which underscores the extent to which the GPU drags down the overall experience.

The contrast between the CPU's strong standing and the combined rank is instructive. The Ryzen 5 3600's average benchmark score of 18,129 is competitive with modern processors, but the GTX 1650's 43rd percentile GPU ranking (average score 8,713) creates a significant imbalance. The data suggests that this combo is severely GPU-constrained in this particular game, which is consistent with the resolution scaling analysis.

For context, the combo's rank means that 1,752 other combinations of CPUs and GPUs deliver better performance in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Given that the game is known for its demanding graphics, this low ranking is not surprising. The measured FPS data — with only one configuration (1080p Low) exceeding 40 FPS — confirms that this pairing is at the lower end of playability for this title.

The implication is clear: users with this hardware should target 1080p with Low or Medium settings, and even then, frame rates will be modest. The data shows that the CPU has headroom to spare, but the GPU is the limiting factor that defines the experience.