Microsoft Flight Simulator

The data for Microsoft Flight Simulator on this AMD Ryzen 5 4600G and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 pairing shows a system that is firmly constrained by its graphics hardware at higher resolutions, yet reveals a more balanced profile at 1080p. The measured results provide a clear picture of where this combination excels and where it struggles.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate drop from 1080p to 4K is severe, indicating the GTX 1650 is the dominant limiting factor as pixel count increases. At Low settings, the average frame rate falls from 50.6 FPS at 1920x1080 to 38.2 FPS at 2560x1440, a reduction of 12.4 FPS. Moving to 3840x2160 at the same Low preset, the average drops further to 29 FPS, which is 21.6 FPS below the 1080p result. This scaling pattern shows that the GPU’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit memory bus are overwhelmed by the pixel throughput demands of 4K.

The situation is more pronounced at higher quality settings. At High settings, the average frame rate goes from 25.7 FPS at 1080p to 22.6 FPS at 1440p, and then down to 16.2 FPS at 4K. The Ultra preset tells a similar story: 24.6 FPS at 1080p, 22.2 FPS at 1440p, and 17.6 FPS at 4K. The gap between 1080p and 1440p is relatively small for these heavier presets, which suggests that the game is becoming increasingly bottlenecked by the CPU or memory system as the GPU struggles to maintain even moderate frame rates. The 1080p to 4K drop for High settings is 9.5 FPS, while for Low settings it is 21.6 FPS, showing that the GPU’s limitations are the primary constraint in every configuration.

The data indicates that 1080p is the only resolution where this combo can approach playable frame rates, and even then, only at lower settings. The 1440p results are consistently below 40 FPS across all settings, making it a marginal choice for this game. The 4K results, ranging from 16.2 to 29 FPS, are not suitable for a smooth experience. The consistent decline across all presets confirms that the GTX 1650’s compute capabilities, rated at 2.984 TFLOPS, are insufficient for the high pixel counts of modern flight simulation.

How This Combo Ranks

In the database of tested combinations, this pairing ranks 1734 out of 1795 combos for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 3.4% of all tested systems, which is a low position but not entirely unexpected given the hardware involved. The GTX 1650 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Ryzen 5 4600G is at the 75th percentile among all CPUs. This discrepancy highlights that the graphics card is the weaker link in this pairing.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 17489 places it very close to its nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5355GE scores 17482, a delta of 0%, while the Intel Core i5-12450H scores 17475, a delta of 0.1%. The Intel Core i3-14100T and Core i3-13100F are slightly ahead with scores of 17636 and 17665, representing deltas of -0.8% and -1% respectively, meaning the 4600G trails them by about 1%. These are negligible differences in synthetic benchmarks, and they do not translate into meaningful performance variations in this game’s measured results.

The GPU’s average benchmark score of 8713 places it near several rivals with similar performance. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8746, a delta of -0.4%, and the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749, also a delta of -0.4%. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is slightly behind at 8671, a delta of 0.5%. These tiny deltas confirm that the GTX 1650 is positioned in a tightly contested performance tier, and the measured FPS in Flight Simulator reflects that mid-range reality. The low combo rank is driven primarily by the GPU’s inability to handle the game’s demanding rendering, rather than by any deficiency in the CPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the highest average frame rate achieved by this combo?

A: The highest average frame rate is 50.6 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600G has an average benchmark score of 17489, which is within 1% of the Intel Core i3-13100F that scores 17665.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 or the Ryzen 5 4600G the limiting factor in this game?

A: The GPU is the limiting factor, as shown by its 43rd percentile ranking versus the CPU’s 75th percentile, and by the sharp FPS drops at higher resolutions.

Q: What is the frame rate at 2560x1440 with Medium settings?

A: The average frame rate is 28.6 FPS at 2560x1440 with Medium settings.

Q: How does the GTX 1650’s benchmark score compare to the AMD Radeon 550X?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 8713, while the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8749, a delta of -0.4%, indicating nearly identical performance.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: The average frame rate drops from 29 FPS on Low to 17.6 FPS on Ultra at 3840x2160, a difference of 11.4 FPS.

Settings Recommendations

The measured data points to a clear recommendation: use Low settings at 1920x1080 for the best playable experience. The 50.6 FPS average at this configuration is the only result above 50 FPS, providing a reasonably smooth simulation. At Medium settings, the frame rate falls to 38.9 FPS, which is still workable but shows a noticeable dip. High settings at 1080p yield 25.7 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable play, and Ultra drops further to 24.6 FPS.

At 2560x1440, the Low preset delivers 38.2 FPS, which is playable but not ideal, while Medium drops to 28.6 FPS and High to 22.6 FPS. The Ultra preset at 1440p matches the High preset at 4K in terms of average FPS, both at 22.2 FPS, indicating a similar level of graphical load. For 4K, all settings are below 30 FPS, with Low at 29 FPS being the only option that approaches playability, though it remains marginal.

Given the data, the optimal compromise is Low settings at 1080p. This configuration provides the highest frame rate and avoids the stutter that would likely accompany the lower results. Medium at 1080p is a secondary option for slightly better visuals, but the 11.7 FPS penalty is significant. Users prioritizing visual fidelity over smoothness might consider Medium at 1440p with 28.6 FPS, but the data suggests that frame rate consistency is better served at 1080p.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the average frame rates are as follows: Low settings produce 50.6 FPS, Medium produces 38.9 FPS, High produces 25.7 FPS, and Ultra produces 24.6 FPS. The scaling from Low to Ultra is a drop of 26 FPS, with the largest single-step decrease occurring from Low to Medium at 11.7 FPS. The transition from Medium to High costs 13.2 FPS, while High to Ultra only costs 1.1 FPS, suggesting diminishing returns at the highest preset.

At 2560x1440, the results are: Low at 38.2 FPS, Medium at 28.6 FPS, High at 22.6 FPS, and Ultra at 22.2 FPS. The difference between Low and Ultra is 16 FPS. Notably, the gap between High and Ultra is only 0.4 FPS, indicating that the Ultra preset does not add a meaningful load at this resolution. The step from Medium to High is 6 FPS, which is less severe than at 1080p.

At 3840x2160, the average frame rates are: Low at 29 FPS, Medium at 22.2 FPS, High at 16.2 FPS, and Ultra at 17.6 FPS. The pattern here is unusual, as the High preset is actually slower than Ultra by 1.4 FPS. This could be due to specific rendering paths in the game engine, but the data consistently shows that 4K is beyond this combo’s capability. The Low to Medium drop is 6.8 FPS, and Medium to High is another 6 FPS. All 4K results are below 30 FPS, rendering this resolution impractical for this hardware.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600G is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on the Zen 2 architecture, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. It has 8 MB of shared L3 cache and supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. These specifications make it a competent mid-range CPU, as reflected in its 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs. In synthetic benchmarks, it scores 13593 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1919 in single-core, which are solid numbers for a 4000-series desktop part.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is secondary to the GPU, but its multi-threading capabilities are still relevant. The game is known for heavy single-thread usage, and the 4600G’s single-core score of 1919 in Cinebench R23 suggests it can handle the simulation logic. The 12 threads help with background tasks and scenery loading, but the measured FPS data shows that the GTX 1650 is the bottleneck at all resolutions. The fact that the 1080p Low result of 50.6 FPS is the only score above 50 FPS indicates that the CPU is not holding back the GPU at this setting; rather, the GPU is simply at its limit.

The CPU’s average benchmark score of 17489 places it at parity with rivals like the Intel Core i5-12450H, which scores 17475. This means the 4600G is not a weak link in the system. However, the overall combo rank of 1734 out of 1795 shows that the pairing does not excel in this title. The data suggests that upgrading the GPU would yield a far greater performance improvement than upgrading the CPU, as the 4600G has headroom to support a faster graphics card without becoming a constraint. The 65 W TDP and AM4 socket make it an easy part to pair with a range of GPUs, but in this specific configuration, the GTX 1650’s 75 W TDP and 4 GB memory limit are the defining factors in the game’s performance.