Microsoft Flight Simulator

# FAQ

Q: What is the overall ranking of this AMD Ryzen 5 5600X + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 combo for Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combination ranks 3567th out of 3714 tested combos in the database for this game, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested configurations. The data indicates this is a very low-performing combo for this title, which is consistent with the measured frame rates that fall below playable thresholds at most settings.

Q: What is the best frame rate achieved with this combo at any resolution?

A: The highest average FPS recorded is 48 at 1920x1080 with Low settings. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate, while all other settings and resolutions produce averages between 16 and 39 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU compare to its nearest rivals in synthetic benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, placing it in the 40th percentile among all GPUs. It is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% ahead), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% ahead), while sitting 1% behind the Intel Arc A310.

Q: What is the CPU's synthetic performance position relative to other processors?

A: The Ryzen 5 5600X scores 21771 on average across all benchmarks, placing it in the 75th percentile among all CPUs. It is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 4800H (0.1% ahead), while trailing the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650U and Intel Core i7-11700 by 0.5% each, and the AMD EPYC 9554P by 0.6%.

Q: What are the measured FPS differences between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, Low settings produce 48 FPS on average, while Ultra drops to 27 FPS. Medium delivers 37 FPS, and High sits at 28 FPS. The gap between Low and Ultra is 21 FPS, representing a 44% reduction in average frame rate.

Q: Does this combo ever reach 60 FPS in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: No. The data shows no measured configuration reaches 60 FPS. The maximum recorded average is 48 FPS at 1080p Low, meaning all tested settings fall below the standard 60 FPS target for smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The data places this combo at rank 3567 out of 3714 total tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This percentile placement — roughly the 96th worst — tells a clear story: the GTX 1650 is the dominant bottleneck in this pairing, dragging down what is otherwise a reasonably capable CPU.

The CPU alone sits in the 75th percentile among all processors, with an average benchmark score of 21771 that rivals chips like the Intel Core i7-11700 and AMD Ryzen 7 4800H. Yet the combo's in-game ranking is abysmal because the GPU's 40th percentile standing (average score 7472) cannot keep pace with the demands of a flight simulator that renders vast terrain, weather, and cockpit detail.

Looking at the measured data, the pattern is consistent: even at the lowest settings, the GPU struggles to deliver smooth motion. At 1080p Low — the most forgiving scenario — the combo manages 48 FPS. At 4K Ultra, it falls to 16 FPS. These numbers confirm that the GPU is the limiting factor, as the CPU's strong single-thread performance (1541 in Cinebench R23 single-core) would theoretically handle the simulation's physics and flight model calculations without issue, but the graphics pipeline cannot keep up.

The rank becomes even more telling when compared to the CPU's nearest rivals. The Ryzen 5 5600X is statistically indistinguishable from several other mid-range processors in synthetic tests, yet none of that matters when the GPU delivers frame rates in the teens at higher resolutions. Benchmark results indicate that for this specific game, the combo's rank is almost entirely determined by the GPU's capabilities, not the CPU's.

Settings Recommendations

Given the measured FPS data, the only viable path to a playable experience is 1080p with Low settings, where the combo produces 48 FPS on average. All other configurations fall below 40 FPS, with many dipping into the 16-30 FPS range that is generally considered too choppy for interactive flight.

At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 37 FPS, with a minimum of 32 and maximum of 43. While this is playable for some, the 32 FPS minimum suggests occasional stutters during dense scenery or weather events. High settings at 1080p yield 28 FPS average, which is borderline for a flight simulator where smooth control inputs matter.

For users who insist on higher resolutions, the data shows that 1440p Low produces 39 FPS, which is the only other configuration above 35 FPS. However, the step from 1080p Low to 1440p Low costs 9 FPS — a 19% reduction — for a modest resolution increase. The recommendation based on the measured rows is clear: 1080p Low is the best experience this combo can deliver, balancing average frame rate and consistency.

Ultra settings are effectively unusable at any resolution, with averages ranging from 16 FPS at 4K to 27 FPS at 1080p. The gap between Low and Ultra at 1080p (21 FPS) highlights how much performance is sacrificed for visual fidelity on this GPU. Medium at 1080p is the only middle-ground option that stays above 35 FPS, making it a secondary recommendation for users who prioritize visual quality over smoothness.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings spectrum shows: Low 48 FPS, Medium 37 FPS (min 32, max 43), High 28 FPS, and Ultra 27 FPS. The progression from Low to Medium is a 11 FPS drop, while the Medium to High step costs 9 FPS, and High to Ultra is nearly flat at 1 FPS difference. This suggests diminishing returns in frame rate cost as settings increase, but also that the GPU is already saturated at High.

At 2560x1440, the numbers compress downward: Low 39 FPS, Medium 30 FPS (min 26, max 35), High 23 FPS, and Ultra 22 FPS. The 1440p results show a similar pattern to 1080p but with roughly 8-9 FPS shaved off at each setting tier. The minimum FPS of 26 at Medium indicates that even this mid-range setting can produce noticeable dips during complex scenes.

At 3840x2160, the combo falls apart: Low 29 FPS, Medium 22 FPS (min 19, max 26), High 17 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. The 4K Low result is 19 FPS below the 1080p Low figure, demonstrating that the GPU's 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 4 GB frame buffer are severely strained at this resolution. The Ultra setting at 4K produces a barely interactive slideshow at 16 FPS.

Comparing across resolutions at the same setting, Low shows: 48 (1080p), 39 (1440p), 29 (4K). Medium shows: 37 (1080p), 30 (1440p), 22 (4K). High shows: 28 (1080p), 23 (1440p), 17 (4K). Ultra shows: 27 (1080p), 22 (1440p), 16 (4K). The relative drops are consistent, indicating that resolution scaling affects all settings proportionally on this GPU.

GPU Role

The GTX 1650 is unequivocally the limiting component in this combo for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its specifications — 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth — are modest by modern standards, and the measured frame rates reflect this constraint. The GPU's 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 896 shading units are simply insufficient for the heavy rendering load of a flight simulator that draws detailed terrain, dynamic clouds, and complex lighting.

The GPU's memory configuration is particularly problematic. With only 4 GB of VRAM, high-resolution textures and detailed scenery at 1440p or 4K can exceed this capacity, causing the GPU to fall back on slower system memory. The benchmark scores confirm its modest standing: 7880 in Passmark G3D, 305 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, and 35 in Passmark DirectX 12 — a score that places it near the bottom of modern GPUs.

The 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs means it sits below the median, and its nearest rivals include integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% behind in average score). This contextualizes the GTX 1650 as entry-level silicon, and the game's results show no configuration where it provides a smooth 60 FPS experience. The GPU's boost clock of 1665 MHz and base clock of 1485 MHz are reasonable for its class, but raw clock speed cannot compensate for the limited memory subsystem and compute throughput.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 5600X presents a stark contrast to the GPU in terms of capability. With 6 cores and 12 threads based on Zen 3 architecture, this CPU delivers strong synthetic performance: 11838 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 1541 in single-core, and 9173 in Geekbench multi-core. Its 75th percentile standing among all CPUs shows it is a solid mid-range processor, with an average benchmark score of 21771 that matches or exceeds many higher-tier options.

The CPU's single-thread performance is particularly strong for flight simulation, which often relies on a few heavily loaded threads for physics and flight model calculations. The boost clock of 4.60 GHz and 32 MB of L3 cache provide ample headroom for such workloads. The 3DMark results — 917 single-thread, 1793 for 2 threads, 3363 for 4 threads, 4811 for 8 threads, and 5588 for max threads — show good scaling up to 8 threads, indicating the CPU can handle parallel workloads effectively.

However, in this combo, the CPU's potential is unrealized. The measured FPS data shows no scenario where the CPU becomes the bottleneck — even at 1080p Low with 48 FPS, the GPU is likely saturated. The CPU sits idle relative to its capabilities, waiting for the GPU to deliver frames. This is a classic case of a balanced processor paired with an underpowered graphics card, where the CPU's 75th percentile performance is wasted on a GPU that ranks in the 40th percentile.

Resolution Scaling

The FPS drops from 1080p to 4K reveal the GPU-bound nature of this combo. At Low settings, the progression is 48 FPS (1080p) to 39 FPS (1440p) to 29 FPS (4K) — a 19 FPS drop from 1080p to 4K, representing a 40% reduction. At Medium, the drop is from 37 to 30 to 22 FPS, a 15 FPS reduction (41%). At High, it goes from 28 to 23 to 17 FPS, an 11 FPS drop (39%). At Ultra, from 27 to 22 to 16 FPS, an 11 FPS reduction (41%).

These proportional drops — consistently around 40% from 1080p to 4K across all settings — are a hallmark of GPU-limited performance. If the CPU were the bottleneck, we would expect smaller absolute differences at higher resolutions, as the CPU's workload remains relatively constant while the GPU's rendering load increases. Instead, the frame rate scales almost linearly with pixel count, confirming that the GTX 1650's rendering throughput and memory bandwidth are the primary constraints.

The 1440p to 4K step is less punishing than 1080p to 1440p in absolute terms, but the percentage drops remain similar. This suggests the GPU is operating in a consistent efficiency range across resolutions, with no sudden cliff caused by VRAM exhaustion — though the 4 GB capacity likely contributes to the low absolute numbers. The data implies that users who want to play this game would need to substantially upgrade the GPU to achieve acceptable frame rates at any resolution, as even the best measured setting (1080p Low at 48 FPS) barely reaches playable territory.