Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the combination of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 produces a benchmark profile that is severely constrained by the graphics subsystem. The measured data indicates a system that is capable of producing a playable experience only at the lowest settings and resolution, with any attempt to increase visual fidelity resulting in a slideshow. This analysis breaks down the measured performance, contextualizes the component roles, and provides clear guidance based solely on the supplied data.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data presents a clear hierarchy of playability, and the optimal preset is unequivocally Low at 1920x1080 resolution. This is the only configuration that approaches a playable frame rate, with an average of 48 FPS. While this is still below the 60 FPS target many users prefer, it is the only setting that allows for a reasonably fluid simulation experience. The next step up, Medium at 1080p, drops to an average of 37 FPS, which is a significant 11 FPS reduction and enters a range where the fluidity of the flight simulation is compromised, particularly during complex maneuvers or over dense scenery.

For users who prioritize visual fidelity over smoothness, the Medium preset at 1920x1080 is the highest acceptable setting. The data shows an average of 37 FPS with a minimum of 32 FPS and a maximum of 43 FPS. The minimum frame rate of 32 FPS is critical; it suggests that while the average is in the low 30s, there will be noticeable stutters and frame drops during the most demanding moments, such as flying over a detailed city or during rapid camera panning. Pushing to High or Ultra at 1080p yields averages of 28 FPS and 27 FPS, respectively, which are effectively unplayable for a smooth experience, though they are technically above the 16-17 FPS range seen at 4K.

At higher resolutions, the situation degrades rapidly. At 2560x1440, the Low preset yields 39 FPS, which is borderline playable but requires a significant compromise in visual quality. The Medium preset at this resolution averages 30 FPS, with a minimum of 26 FPS, making it a marginal experience at best. The data strongly suggests that 1440p should be avoided for this combination if any sense of smoothness is desired. The 4K resolution (3840x2160) is entirely out of the question, with even the Low preset averaging only 29 FPS. In summary, the best experience is achieved by selecting the Low preset at 1080p, with Medium at 1080p being the maximum acceptable compromise for those who prioritize visuals over frame rate stability.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary bottleneck in this configuration for Microsoft Flight Simulator. The GPU's specifications paint a picture of a hardware component that is fundamentally out of its depth. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s. This limited memory capacity and bandwidth are detrimental to a game that streams vast amounts of terrain and texture data. The 4 GB frame buffer is likely to be exceeded even at 1080p on higher settings, leading to texture thrashing and significant performance hits.

The GPU's compute capabilities are also modest. With 896 shading units, a base clock of 1485 MHz, and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, the GTX 1650 delivers a FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS. This raw processing power is insufficient for the complex lighting and rendering calculations required by the simulator. The GPU's overall standing is reflected in its benchmark percentile of 40, meaning it performs better than only 40% of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 7472 places it in close competition with the Intel Arc A310 (7550), which is 1% faster, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425), which is 0.6% slower. This positions the GTX 1650 at the very entry-level of modern gaming GPUs.

The measured FPS data confirms this analysis. The performance drop between settings is steep and immediate. At 1080p, moving from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, and from Medium to High costs another 9 FPS. This scaling suggests that the GPU is so saturated that even small increases in shader complexity or texture detail result in disproportionate frame rate losses. The GPU is the limiting factor in every scenario, as the CPU has ample headroom to feed it frames, but the GTX 1650 simply cannot process the workload quickly enough.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall performance of this CPU/GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator is extremely poor. The data shows that this combo ranks 2885 out of 2996 tested combinations. This places it in the bottom 4% of all systems tested, indicating that nearly every other hardware pairing delivers a better experience in this specific title. This ranking is a direct consequence of the GTX 1650's low standing.

The CPU, on the other hand, is a much stronger component. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has a percentile rank of 83 against all CPUs, meaning it outperforms 83% of its peers. Its average benchmark score of 32750 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, with the Intel Core i5-14600T scoring 32707 (0.1% slower) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H scoring 32812 (0.2% faster). This indicates that the CPU is delivering a mid-range to upper-mid-range level of processing power. The disparity between the CPU's strong performance and the GPU's weak performance is what creates such a lopsided system. The combo rank of 2885 is almost entirely dragged down by the GPU, as the CPU is not the limiting factor in this pairing for this game. The data suggests that this CPU could support a significantly more powerful GPU to achieve a much higher combo rank.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data provides a detailed look at the system's performance across all tested configurations. The following breakdown is based on the exact numbers provided.

At 1920x1080, the results are as follows:

• Low: Average FPS of 48. This is the peak performance for this system, and the only setting to break the 40 FPS barrier.
• Medium: Average FPS of 37, with a minimum of 32 and a maximum of 43. This shows a playable but inconsistent frame rate.
• High: Average FPS of 28. This is a significant drop from Medium, indicating the GPU is struggling.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 27. Interestingly, the difference between High and Ultra is minimal, suggesting the CPU is beginning to provide a slight floor, or the GPU is hitting a hard limit on rendering complexity.

At 2560x1440, the performance degrades further:

• Low: Average FPS of 39. This is a 9 FPS drop from the same setting at 1080p.
• Medium: Average FPS of 30, with a minimum of 26 and a maximum of 35. The minimum frame rate here is very low, indicating potential for noticeable stutter.
• High: Average FPS of 23.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 22.

At 3840x2160, the system is overwhelmed:

• Low: Average FPS of 29.
• Medium: Average FPS of 22, with a minimum of 19 and a maximum of 26.
• High: Average FPS of 17.
• Ultra: Average FPS of 16.

The data shows a clear pattern of performance collapse as resolution and settings increase. The GTX 1650 is simply not capable of handling the pixel count and visual complexity of this simulator at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The impact of resolution on frame rate is a key indicator of the system's bottleneck. When moving from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 at the Low preset, the average FPS drops from 48 to 39, a decrease of 9 FPS or roughly 18.75%. When moving further to 3840x2160, the FPS drops to 29, a further decrease of 10 FPS from 1440p. This scaling behavior is characteristic of a GPU-limited scenario.

The number of pixels being rendered increases significantly with each resolution step. 1440p has 1.78 times the pixels of 1080p, and 4K has 2.25 times the pixels of 1440p. The FPS drops are not proportional to the pixel count increase; they are less severe. For example, 4K has 2.25x the pixels of 1440p, but the FPS only drops by roughly 25% (from 39 to 29) at Low settings. This suggests that while the GPU is the primary limiter, the system is not purely pixel-bound. Other factors, such as memory bandwidth and the CPU's ability to feed the GPU, are also playing a role in mitigating the expected performance loss.

However, the absolute FPS values are so low that this scaling analysis is academic. The system is not playable at 1440p or 4K regardless of the scaling behavior. The more important observation is that the frame rate drops are consistent across all settings, confirming that the graphics card is the component that determines the ceiling of performance in this title. The CPU is not being taxed enough to cause a scaling bottleneck; the GTX 1650 is simply running out of processing power at every resolution.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is a modern, capable processor that is severely underutilized in this configuration. While the GPU is the bottleneck, the CPU's characteristics ensure that it is not causing additional frame drops. The CPU features 6 cores and 12 threads, based on the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process. Its base clock is 3.70 GHz, which can boost up to 4.70 GHz. This level of single-thread performance is crucial for a simulation game like Microsoft Flight Simulator, which relies heavily on a few primary threads for the core simulation logic.

The CPU's benchmark results confirm its strength. In Cinebench R23, it scores 21765 points in multi-core and 3072 points in single-core. The single-core score is particularly relevant here, as it indicates the processor can handle the demanding simulation loop without becoming a bottleneck. The CPU's L3 cache is 32 MB (shared), which is ample for holding the working set of data required by the game. With a TDP of 65 W, it is an efficient processor that will not cause thermal throttling issues in most systems.

In this specific game, the data suggests the CPU is never the limiting factor. The FPS drops between settings and resolutions are all consistent with GPU limitations. If the CPU were a bottleneck, we would expect to see the frame rate plateau at higher settings or resolutions, where the GPU workload increases. However, the FPS continues to drop steadily, indicating the CPU is still waiting for the GPU to finish its work. The Ryzen 5 7400F is providing a solid foundation, but the GTX 1650 is preventing it from demonstrating its full potential in this title.

FAQ

Q: Is this system capable of running Microsoft Flight Simulator at a playable frame rate?

A: Yes, but only at the Low preset and 1920x1080 resolution, where it achieves an average of 48 FPS. Higher settings or resolutions result in average frame rates below 40 FPS, which is generally not considered smooth for a flight simulator.

Q: What is the highest settings preset that is still somewhat playable?

A: The Medium preset at 1920x1080 is the highest playable option, with an average of 37 FPS. However, the minimum FPS of 32 indicates that there will be noticeable stutters during demanding scenes.

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

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472. It is 1% slower than the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550, and 0.6% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 350, which scores 7425. It is also 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7447.

Q: What is the performance difference between 1080p and 4K at the Low preset?

A: At 1920x1080 Low, the average FPS is 48. At 3840x2160 Low, the average FPS drops to 29. This represents a 19 FPS reduction when moving to 4K.

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

A: The GPU is the clear limiting factor. The GTX 1650 has a percentile rank of 40 and an average score of 7472, while the CPU has a percentile rank of 83 and an average score of 32750. The FPS scaling patterns across settings and resolutions are consistent with a GPU bottleneck.

Q: How does this specific CPU/GPU combination rank compared to others?

A: This combination ranks 2885 out of 2996 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 4% of all tested systems, indicating that the GTX 1650 severely hampers the overall performance, despite the Ryzen 5 7400F being a capable processor.