Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured frame rates for this AMD Ryzen 5 5600F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination reveal a steep and consistent performance cliff as resolution climbs. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo averages 48 FPS. Dropping to 2560x1440 Low yields 39 FPS, a reduction of roughly 19%. At 3840x2160 Low, the average falls to 29 FPS, which is about 40% below the 1080p Low figure. This scaling pattern is not linear — the gap between 1440p and 4K is nearly as large as the gap between 1080p and 1440p, suggesting the rendering pipeline is becoming progressively more strained at higher pixel counts.

Looking at Medium settings, the trend sharpens. At 1080p Medium, the average is 37 FPS with a minimum of 32 and maximum of 43. At 1440p Medium, that drops to 30 FPS (min 26, max 35). At 4K Medium, the average collapses to 22 FPS with a minimum of 19 and maximum of 26. The delta between 1080p and 4K at Medium is 15 FPS, or roughly 41% lower. For High settings, the numbers are 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p, and 17 FPS at 4K — a 39% reduction from 1080p to 4K. Ultra settings follow suit: 27 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p, and 16 FPS at 4K.

What does this scaling imply about the limiting component? The fact that even at Low settings, 4K resolution only manages 29 FPS — barely above the 27 FPS Ultra figure at 1080p — indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck. If the CPU were the constraint, we would expect to see smaller FPS deltas across resolutions at the same settings, because the CPU workload would remain relatively constant while the GPU load scales with pixel count. Instead, the data shows that raising resolution from 1080p to 4K at Low settings costs 19 FPS, which is a massive penalty for a settings tier that should be relatively light on the GPU. This is a clear sign that the GTX 1650's rendering capabilities are being exhausted long before the CPU's potential is reached.

The 4K Ultra result of 16 FPS is particularly telling. That is essentially unplayable for a flight simulator, where smooth camera panning over terrain is critical. Even the 4K Medium average of 22 FPS sits below the threshold most users would consider acceptable for a sim title. The data suggests that this combo is best suited for 1080p operation, where it can at least approach playable frame rates on lower settings. The resolution scaling curve is steep and unforgiving, which aligns with the GPU's modest specifications and its percentile ranking among all GPUs.

CPU Role — cores, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F brings 6 cores and 12 threads to the table, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. This is a Zen 3 architecture part, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, and it sits in the 85th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its multi-threaded PassMark score is 19,236, while the single-thread score is 2,872. These are respectable figures for a modern desktop processor, and the nearest rivals in the database — the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 at 36,938 avg score, the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D at 37,018, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37,093, and the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37,112 — all fall within a narrow band of -0.5% to 0% deltaPct relative to this CPU's average benchmark score of 36,945.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is significant because the sim has to simulate weather, terrain, aircraft systems, and AI traffic, all of which are heavily single-threaded or lightly threaded workloads. The 5600F's single-thread score of 2,872 suggests it handles these tasks competently, but the data does not show the CPU being the limiting factor at any resolution. Consider the FPS deltas across settings at 1080p: Low is 48 FPS, Medium is 37, High is 28, and Ultra is 27. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect to see these numbers cluster more tightly, because the CPU workload would dominate regardless of graphics settings. Instead, the spread from 48 to 27 FPS is nearly 44%, which indicates the GPU is throttling performance as settings increase.

The 12 threads provide headroom for background tasks and the sim's multi-threaded components, but the benchmark results do not show a scenario where the CPU's core count or clock speed becomes the deciding factor. At 4K Low, the 29 FPS result is nearly identical to the 1080p Ultra result of 27 FPS, reinforcing that the CPU can feed frames at a similar rate regardless of resolution, but the GPU simply cannot keep up at higher pixel counts. The CPU's 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) are adequate for the sim's data streaming needs, but there is no evidence in the measured FPS that these features provide a tangible advantage in this particular title.

The fact that the CPU's nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-12900T, has a slightly higher average score (37,112 vs 36,945) yet the 5600F still lands in the 85th percentile suggests this is a well-balanced mid-range processor. However, the data implies that pairing it with a GTX 1650 creates a mismatch where the CPU is underutilized in most scenarios. The sim is likely CPU-bound at very low settings and low resolutions, but the moment you raise resolution or settings, the GPU takes over as the primary constraint. This is not a criticism of the CPU — rather, it highlights that the GPU is the more significant performance limiter in this specific combination.

GPU Role — VRAM, clocks, and how they relate to this game's results

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture part (chip TU117) built on a 12 nm process, with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. In the database, it sits in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,472. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447 avg score, +0.3% deltaPct), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, +0.4%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, +0.6%), and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, -1%).

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical factor for Microsoft Flight Simulator, which is known for streaming large textures and detailed terrain. The measured data shows that at 1080p Ultra, the combo averages 27 FPS, while 4K Ultra drops to 16 FPS. The difference between 1080p and 4K at Ultra is 11 FPS, which is a 41% reduction. This aligns with the GPU's limited memory bandwidth and capacity — at 4K, the sim likely needs to store and access far more texture data, and the 128.1 GB/s bandwidth becomes a constraint. The fact that 4K Low (29 FPS) is only 2 FPS higher than 1080p Ultra (27 FPS) suggests that even at Low settings, the 4K resolution overwhelms the GPU's ability to fill pixels efficiently.

The GTX 1650's pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s, which are modest figures for a 2020-era flight simulator. The sim's rendering demands — detailed clouds, water reflections, and dense urban environments — push the GPU hard, and the data reflects that. At 1440p Medium, the average is 30 FPS with a minimum of 26, which is borderline playable for a sim but not comfortable. At 4K Medium, the 22 FPS average (min 19, max 26) is likely to feel stuttery during complex maneuvers or when flying over detailed scenery.

The GPU's 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs is telling — it places the GTX 1650 in the lower half of the performance spectrum. When compared to its nearest rivals, the Intel Arc A310 is actually 1% faster in average benchmark score, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is only 0.3% slower. This indicates that the GTX 1650 is not a high-performing part even within its peer group. For a flight simulator that demands sustained frame delivery, this GPU is the clear weak link in the combo. The CPU's 85th percentile ranking versus the GPU's 40th percentile creates a significant imbalance: the processor is capable of much more, but the graphics card cannot translate that capability into higher frame rates.

FAQ

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows that 1920x1080 is the only resolution where the combo achieves above 30 FPS on Low settings (48 FPS) and approaches playability on Medium (37 FPS). At 2560x1440, even Low settings only reach 39 FPS, and at 3840x2160, all settings fall below 30 FPS.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest GPU rivals?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472. The Intel Arc A310 is 1% faster (7,550), while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% slower (7,447), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% slower (7,441), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% slower (7,425).

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the limiting factor in this combo?

A: The measured FPS data indicates the GPU is the primary bottleneck. At 4K Low, the combo averages 29 FPS, which is barely more than the 27 FPS at 1080p Ultra. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect smaller FPS differences across resolutions at the same settings.

Q: What is the highest FPS recorded in the measured data?

A: The highest average FPS is 48, achieved at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The lowest average is 16 FPS at 3840x2160 with Ultra settings.

Q: How does the Ryzen 5 5600F rank among all CPUs?

A: The CPU sits in the 85th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 36,945. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225, has a nearly identical score of 36,938 (0% deltaPct).

Q: Does the 4 GB VRAM cause issues at higher resolutions?

A: The data suggests it does. At 4K Ultra, the average FPS is 16, which is the lowest in the dataset. The 4K Medium result (22 FPS) is also significantly lower than 1440p Medium (30 FPS), indicating that the GPU's memory capacity and bandwidth are insufficient for high-resolution texture streaming.

How This Combo Ranks

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combination ranks 2,885 out of 2,996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 4% of all tested system configurations, which is a stark contrast to the individual component rankings. The CPU alone sits in the 85th percentile, while the GPU is in the 40th percentile. The combo's rank is dragged down almost entirely by the GPU's performance in this specific title.

Out of 2,996 combos, only 111 perform worse. This is a sobering statistic for anyone considering this pairing for flight simulation. The rank suggests that while the CPU is capable of high performance in general benchmarks, the GPU's limitations in a demanding sim like Microsoft Flight Simulator outweigh the CPU's strengths. The data shows that the combo's measured FPS figures are consistently low across all resolutions and settings, with the highest average being just 48 FPS at 1080p Low.

The disparity between the CPU's 85th percentile and the combo's 2,885th rank out of 2,996 is informative. It indicates that pairing a strong mid-range CPU with a weak entry-level GPU creates a system that is severely underperforming relative to its processor's potential. For comparison, if the CPU were the limiting factor, we would expect the combo rank to be closer to the CPU's percentile. Instead, the combo rank aligns more closely with the GPU's 40th percentile, confirming that the graphics card is the dominant constraint.

This rank also means that users of this combo are likely to experience significant stuttering and frame drops, especially when flying over complex scenery or during weather events. The minimum FPS values recorded at Medium settings — 32 FPS at 1080p, 26 FPS at 1440p, and 19 FPS at 4K — highlight the instability of the experience. Even at the lowest settings, the combo cannot maintain a consistent 60 FPS, which is a common target for flight sim enthusiasts.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the measured results are as follows: Low settings produce an average of 48 FPS. Medium settings yield 37 FPS average, with a minimum of 32 and maximum of 43 FPS. High settings drop to 28 FPS average. Ultra settings are nearly identical to High at 27 FPS average. This narrows the gap between High and Ultra to just 1 FPS, indicating that the GPU is already saturated at High settings and the additional Ultra effects provide little visual benefit for the performance cost.

Moving to 2560x1440, Low settings average 39 FPS. Medium settings average 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 and maximum of 35 FPS. High settings average 23 FPS. Ultra settings average 22 FPS. The delta between High and Ultra at 1440p is again only 1 FPS, mirroring the pattern at 1080p. The drop from 1080p to 1440p at Low settings is 9 FPS (48 to 39), which is a 19% reduction.

At 3840x2160, the results are significantly lower. Low settings average 29 FPS. Medium settings average 22 FPS, with a minimum of 19 and maximum of 26 FPS. High settings average 17 FPS. Ultra settings average 16 FPS. The difference between High and Ultra at 4K is just 1 FPS, consistent with the other resolutions. The drop from 1440p to 4K at Low settings is 10 FPS (39 to 29), which is a 26% reduction — a steeper decline than the 1080p to 1440p drop.

The most striking data point is the 4K Ultra result of 16 FPS. This is only 1 FPS higher than the 4K High result of 17 FPS, and it is 11 FPS lower than the 1080p Ultra result of 27 FPS. The entire Ultra settings tier at 4K is effectively unplayable, with average frame rates well below what is needed for smooth flight simulation. Even at 4K Low, the 29 FPS average is marginal at best, and the lack of minimum FPS data for Low and High settings means we cannot assess the stability of those frame rates.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured FPS data, the optimal experience for this combo is at 1920x1080 with Medium settings, which delivers an average of 37 FPS with a minimum of 32 FPS. This is the only configuration that provides a reasonably stable frame rate above 30 FPS while still offering a moderate level of visual quality. The minimum of 32 FPS ensures that most flight scenarios will remain playable, though users may still experience occasional dips during heavy scenery loads.

For users who prioritize frame rate over visual fidelity, 1080p Low settings provide the best performance at 48 FPS average. This is the only measured configuration that approaches a smooth 60 FPS target, though it comes with the trade-off of reduced detail. The 37 FPS at 1080p Medium is a better balance, offering 11 FPS less than Low but with improved textures and effects.

At 1440p, the data suggests that only Low settings (39 FPS average) are viable, and even then, the frame rate is below the 1080p Medium figure. The 1440p Medium result of 30 FPS average with a 26 FPS minimum is borderline playable but risky for a flight simulator where smooth panning is critical. We would not recommend 1440p Medium or higher for extended sessions.

The 4K resolution should be avoided entirely for this combo. The best 4K result is 29 FPS at Low settings, which is below the 1080p Medium average. All other 4K configurations fall below 25 FPS, with Ultra at 16 FPS being essentially a slideshow. The data strongly indicates that this GPU cannot handle 4K in Microsoft Flight Simulator, regardless of settings.

The High and Ultra settings tiers at 1080p are nearly identical in performance (28 vs 27 FPS), so if a user insists on higher visual quality, there is no meaningful difference between them. However, the 1 FPS difference suggests that the Ultra preset adds visual features without a proportionate performance cost, making it the better choice over High if visual quality is the priority. That said, both are below the 30 FPS threshold, so we recommend sticking with Medium for the best playable experience.