Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 7500F + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

This combination pairs a modern 6-core Zen 4 desktop CPU with an entry-level Turing-based GPU that was already aging when this flight simulator launched in 2020. The benchmark data shows a system that is heavily GPU-limited at every resolution, with the CPU rarely becoming the bottleneck. The measured frame rates across all settings and resolutions range from 16 FPS at 4K Ultra to 48 FPS at 1080p Low, which tells a clear story: this GPU holds back an otherwise capable processor.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7500F brings 6 cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It operates with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, backed by 32 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The CPU supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and it connects via PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes. In synthetic benchmarks, this processor scores 22,799 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 3,218 in single-core, placing it at the 77th percentile among all tested CPUs.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the data shows that this CPU is not the limiting factor. At 1080p Low, the system achieves 48 FPS, but at 1080p Ultra it drops to 27 FPS. If the CPU were the bottleneck, changing graphics settings would have a smaller impact on frame rates. Instead, the 21 FPS difference between Low and Ultra at 1080p indicates that the GPU is struggling as settings increase. The CPU's strong single-thread performance, evidenced by a 3,218 score in Cinebench R23 single-core, is well-suited for a flight simulator that relies heavily on simulation and physics calculations.

Comparing to nearest rivals, the Ryzen 5 7500F scores 24,964 in the average benchmark, which is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11850H (24,935), 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i7-13620H (24,911), and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core 5 210H (24,872). It trails the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F by 0.2%, which scores 25,005. These are marginal differences, all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the 7500F sits in a tightly competitive cluster of mid-range processors. The 3dmark single-thread score of 974 and the 3dmark 2-thread score of 1,902 further confirm that this CPU has ample headroom for the game's engine, which typically uses a few heavily loaded threads.

The 65 W TDP and unlocked multiplier make this an efficient and overclockable part, though the benchmark data here reflects stock operation. With 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die, the Zen 4 architecture delivers strong instructions-per-clock, which is exactly what flight simulators need when rendering complex terrain and simulating aircraft systems. The PassMark single-thread score of 3,841 reinforces the CPU's capability for single-threaded workloads.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. It has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The GPU runs at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and memory operates at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but lacks dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores. The 75 W TDP requires no power connectors, and the card is 229 mm long.

This GPU sits at the 40th percentile among all tested GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, 0.4% slower), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, 0.6% slower). The Intel Arc A310 scores 7,550, which is 1% faster. These are all low-end or integrated graphics solutions, which puts the GTX 1650's performance in context: it is competing with hardware that is several generations old or designed for basic tasks.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU's limitations are evident across all measured resolutions. At 1080p, the average frame rates range from 48 FPS at Low to 27 FPS at Ultra. At 1440p, the range narrows to 39 FPS at Low and 22 FPS at Ultra. At 4K, the range is 29 FPS at Low and 16 FPS at Ultra. The 4 GB VRAM is a significant constraint for a game that streams vast amounts of terrain and aircraft detail. The fact that the GPU is end-of-life in production status and was launched in 2019 with a 149 USD launch MSRP suggests it was never intended for demanding modern titles at high settings.

The PassMark G3D score of 7,880 and the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305 indicate that this GPU can handle basic 3D workloads but struggles with modern game engines. The pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s are low by current standards, and the FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is modest. For a flight simulator that renders dense urban environments and detailed cockpits, these specifications translate directly into the sub-30 FPS averages seen at most settings above Low.

Settings Recommendations

The measured frame rates across resolutions and presets provide a clear picture of what this combo can deliver. At 1080p, the only setting that achieves a playable average above 30 FPS is Low, with 48 FPS. Medium drops to 37 FPS, High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 27 FPS. The data shows that the jump from Low to Medium costs 11 FPS, while the jump from Medium to High costs 9 FPS, and High to Ultra costs only 1 FPS. This suggests that the game's Ultra preset adds visual effects that demand GPU resources without proportional frame rate penalties at 1080p.

At 1440p, the same pattern holds: Low is the only preset above 30 FPS at 39 FPS. Medium achieves 30 FPS, which is borderline, while High and Ultra drop to 23 FPS and 22 FPS respectively. At 4K, no preset reaches 30 FPS, with Low at 29 FPS being the closest, followed by Medium at 22 FPS, High at 17 FPS, and Ultra at 16 FPS.

The best experience per the measured rows is clearly 1080p Low, which delivers 48 FPS. This is the only configuration that provides a frame rate comfortably above 30 FPS, which is important for a flight simulator where smooth panning and instrument readability matter. If visual quality is a priority, 1080p Medium at 37 FPS is a reasonable compromise, but the data shows that going beyond Medium at any resolution yields diminishing returns. At 1440p, Low is the only playable option at 39 FPS, and at 4K, even Low at 29 FPS will feel choppy. The Medium preset at 1080p shows a minimum FPS of 32 and maximum of 43, indicating some frame time variance but no catastrophic drops. The 1440p Medium shows a minimum of 26 FPS, which could cause noticeable stutters during complex scenes.

How This Combo Ranks

This combination of AMD Ryzen 5 7500F and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 ranks 3,567 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 4% of all tested systems, which is a stark position for a CPU that performs at the 77th percentile. The ranking reflects the GPU's severe limitation in this game. The data indicates that the CPU is capable of much higher performance, but the GTX 1650 cannot translate that capability into frame rates.

The combo rank is more a measure of the GPU's inadequacy than the CPU's performance. For context, the Ryzen 5 7500F's nearest CPU rivals all fall within 0.4% of its average benchmark score, meaning the processor is not the differentiator here. The GTX 1650's nearest GPU rivals are integrated graphics and low-end discrete parts, which explains why this combo lands so low in the rankings. A system with this CPU paired with a stronger GPU would likely rank significantly higher, but the data only covers the current configuration.

The fact that this combo ranks 3,567 out of 3,714 means there are only 147 tested combinations that perform worse. This is not a system for high-fidelity flight simulation; it is a combination that can run the game at low settings on a 1080p display, or at reduced resolutions on higher-refresh monitors. The ranking serves as a warning to anyone considering this pairing for a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K reveals a system that is almost entirely GPU-bound. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 48 at 1080p to 39 at 1440p (a 19% decrease), and then to 29 at 4K (a 26% decrease from 1440p). At Medium settings, the progression is 37 FPS at 1080p, 30 FPS at 1440p (a 19% decrease), and 22 FPS at 4K (a 27% decrease). At High settings, the numbers are 28 FPS at 1080p, 23 FPS at 1440p (an 18% decrease), and 17 FPS at 4K (a 26% decrease). At Ultra, the pattern holds: 27 FPS at 1080p, 22 FPS at 1440p (a 19% decrease), and 16 FPS at 4K (a 27% decrease).

The consistent 18-19% drop from 1080p to 1440p and 26-27% drop from 1440p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is the limiting component. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would stay relatively flat as resolution increases, since the CPU workload remains constant while the GPU workload grows. Instead, the frame rates drop proportionally with the increase in pixel count, which is the signature of a GPU-limited scenario. The 4 GB VRAM likely contributes to this, as higher resolutions require more memory for textures and geometry, forcing the GPU to swap data or reduce effective bandwidth.

The data also shows that the gap between Low and Ultra settings stays relatively consistent across resolutions. At 1080p, the difference is 21 FPS (48 vs 27); at 1440p, it is 17 FPS (39 vs 22); and at 4K, it is 13 FPS (29 vs 16). The narrowing gap at higher resolutions suggests that the GPU is becoming saturated at 4K regardless of settings, and the performance differences between presets shrink as pixel fill rate becomes the dominant constraint.

FAQ

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

A: The data shows 1080p Low is the only configuration that achieves a playable average above 30 FPS, delivering 48 FPS. At 1080p Medium, the average drops to 37 FPS, while all other resolutions and settings fall below 30 FPS.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU the bottleneck in this system?

A: The benchmark results indicate the GPU is the limiting component. Frame rates drop consistently by 18-19% from 1080p to 1440p and 26-27% from 1440p to 4K across all settings, which is the signature of a GPU-bound system. The Ryzen 5 7500F performs at the 77th percentile among CPUs, while the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile among GPUs.

Q: How does this combo rank compared to other tested systems?

A: This combination ranks 3,567 out of 3,714 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator, placing it in the bottom 4% of all systems. This low ranking is primarily due to the GPU's performance limitations, as the CPU's nearest rivals are all within 0.4% of its benchmark score.

Q: Can this system handle 4K resolution in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: The data shows no 4K preset achieves 30 FPS. Low settings at 4K deliver 29 FPS, Medium delivers 22 FPS, High delivers 17 FPS, and Ultra delivers 16 FPS. These frame rates are below playable thresholds for a flight simulator.

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

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

Q: What is the impact of switching from Low to Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1080p, Low delivers 48 FPS, Medium delivers 37 FPS, High delivers 28 FPS, and Ultra delivers 27 FPS. The largest performance drop occurs between Low and Medium, costing 11 FPS, while the difference between High and Ultra is only 1 FPS.