Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator: AMD Ryzen 5 7600 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

This combination pairs a modern 6-core Zen 4 processor with an entry-level Turing-based GPU, and benchmark results show a system that is heavily GPU-bound across all tested settings and resolutions. The measured FPS data indicates that this combo ranks near the bottom of the tested pool — 3567 out of 3714 combinations — which places it in the 4th percentile of all tested combos. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and modest compute capacity are the dominant constraints, while the Ryzen 5 7600’s strong single-thread and multi-thread scores provide ample headroom that the GPU cannot exploit in this flight simulator.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data offers a clear hierarchy across the four tested presets: Low, Medium, High, and Ultra. At 1080p, the Low preset delivers 48 FPS average, which is the only setting in the entire dataset that approaches a playable framerate for a flight simulator. Medium drops to 37 FPS, High to 28 FPS, and Ultra to 27 FPS. Given that flight simulation benefits from smooth framerates for precise control and visual scanning, the Low preset is the only setting that provides a consistently fluid experience at 1080p.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more constrained. Low delivers 39 FPS average, Medium drops to 30 FPS, High to 23 FPS, and Ultra to 22 FPS. The 1440p Low setting remains usable for less demanding scenarios, but the margin over 30 FPS is thin. At 4K, no preset achieves even 30 FPS average — Low yields 29 FPS, Medium 22 FPS, High 17 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. The data shows that for this combo, the best experience is achieved by selecting Low at 1080p, where the 48 FPS average represents a 30% improvement over Medium and a 71% improvement over Ultra at the same resolution.

The Medium preset at 1080p, with 37 FPS average and a minimum of 32 FPS, offers a compromise for users who prioritize visual fidelity over framerate. The minimum FPS of 32 indicates that even in demanding scenes, the system stays above 30 FPS. However, the gap between Low and Medium — 11 FPS — suggests that the GPU is struggling to handle the additional shading and texture work. Given that the Ultra preset only provides 27 FPS at 1080p, which is barely distinguishable from High’s 28 FPS, there is no measurable benefit to selecting Ultra over High. The data supports Low as the primary recommendation, with Medium as a secondary option for users who accept lower framerates.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear bottleneck in this configuration. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, which is modest by modern standards. The GPU’s 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs operate at a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, yielding 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. This is a GPU designed for 1080p gaming at low-to-medium settings, and the measured FPS data confirms that expectation.

The GPU’s benchmark percentile of 40 places it in the lower half of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7472. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% slower), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% slower), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% slower), and Intel Arc A310 (1% faster). This grouping indicates that the GTX 1650 sits at the boundary between integrated graphics and discrete entry-level parts, which explains why it struggles with a demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The 4 GB VRAM capacity is a critical limitation for flight simulation, which loads large texture sets for terrain, aircraft, and scenery. At 4K resolution, the GPU is also constrained by memory bandwidth — the 128.1 GB/s must feed increasingly large framebuffers, and the data shows a steep drop from 29 FPS at Low to 16 FPS at Ultra. The VRAM pressure is evident in the fact that the 4K Medium preset has a minimum FPS of 19 and maximum of 26, indicating frame time variance as the GPU swaps textures. The GPU’s 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors underscore its entry-level positioning, but the measured results show that even at Low settings, the GPU cannot maintain 30 FPS at 4K.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor based on Zen 4 architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 5 nm process. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz, combined with 32 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR5 memory support, give it strong single-thread and multi-thread performance. The CPU’s benchmark results confirm this: Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 12735 and single-core score of 1852, Geekbench multi-core of 13413 and single-core of 2521, and 3DMark max threads of 6503.

The CPU’s percentile rank of 78 among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 26324, places it well above the GPU’s percentile of 40. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX (0.2% faster), AMD Ryzen 7 7435HS (0.3% slower), Intel Core i9-11900KF (0.4% faster), and AMD Ryzen 5 8540U (0.5% faster). This grouping shows that the Ryzen 5 7600 performs comparably to higher-tier laptop and desktop processors from previous generations, despite having only 6 cores.

In the context of Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is to handle flight dynamics, AI traffic, weather simulation, and scenery loading. The Ryzen 5 7600’s single-thread performance, as evidenced by its 3DMark single-thread score of 999 and PassMark single-thread score of 3910, is more than sufficient for these tasks. However, the measured FPS data shows that the CPU is never the limiting factor — even at 1080p Low, where the GPU is least stressed, the 48 FPS average is far below what the CPU could theoretically sustain. The CPU’s headroom is demonstrated by the fact that FPS scales almost entirely with resolution and settings changes, which are GPU-bound variables.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 3567 out of 3714 tested combinations places this system in the bottom 4% of all tested hardware pairings for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a remarkably low ranking, especially given the CPU’s strong performance. The data indicates that the GPU is so severely limiting that even a top-tier processor cannot compensate. The GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM and limited compute resources are simply insufficient for a title that demands high texture fidelity and complex rendering.

To contextualize this ranking, consider that the GPU alone sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the CPU sits at the 78th percentile. The combination of a high-percentile CPU with a low-percentile GPU typically results in a system that is heavily GPU-bound, and the measured FPS data confirms this. The 4K Ultra preset’s 16 FPS average and the 1080p Ultra preset’s 27 FPS average both indicate that the GPU is operating at its absolute limit, while the CPU remains underutilized.

The ranking also reflects the game’s demanding nature. Microsoft Flight Simulator, released in 2020, is known for its photorealistic scenery and complex weather systems, which require substantial GPU resources. The combo’s rank of 3567 suggests that this system is only suitable for low-resolution, low-settings play, and even then, it barely achieves playable framerates. Users seeking higher visual fidelity would need to upgrade the GPU, as the CPU has significant headroom.

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data shows a consistent pattern of performance degradation as resolution increases. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 48 at 1080p to 39 at 1440p (a 19% decrease) and further to 29 at 4K (a 40% decrease from 1080p). At Medium settings, the drop is from 37 at 1080p to 30 at 1440p (19% decrease) and 22 at 4K (41% decrease). At High settings, the drop is from 28 at 1080p to 23 at 1440p (18% decrease) and 17 at 4K (39% decrease). At Ultra settings, the drop is from 27 at 1080p to 22 at 1440p (19% decrease) and 16 at 4K (41% decrease).

These percentage decreases are remarkably consistent across all settings presets, which indicates that the GPU’s memory bandwidth and pixel throughput are the limiting factors. The 4K resolution requires four times the pixel count of 1080p, but the FPS does not drop by a factor of four — instead, it drops by roughly 40%. This suggests that the GPU is not purely pixel-bound; rather, the 4 GB VRAM capacity causes additional texture thrashing at higher resolutions, which compresses the performance gap.

The resolution scaling data also reveals that the CPU is not a limiting factor at any resolution. If the CPU were limiting, we would expect to see similar FPS across 1080p and 1440p, with a sharper drop at 4K as the GPU becomes the bottleneck. Instead, the consistent 19% drop from 1080p to 1440p and 40% drop from 1080p to 4K across all settings indicates that the GPU is always the constraint. This is further supported by the fact that the 1080p Low preset (48 FPS) is only slightly higher than the 1440p Low preset (39 FPS), despite the CPU having ample headroom.

FAQ

Q: What is the best settings preset for this combo at 1080p?

A: The Low preset delivers 48 FPS average, which is the highest measured FPS at any resolution or settings combination. Medium provides 37 FPS with a minimum of 32 FPS, but the 11 FPS difference between Low and Medium suggests that Low is the most playable option.

Q: Can this system run Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K?

A: No preset achieves 30 FPS at 4K. The Low preset yields 29 FPS average, Medium 22 FPS, High 17 FPS, and Ultra 16 FPS. Even the lowest settings are borderline unplayable at 4K.

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

A: The GPU is the limiting factor. The Ryzen 5 7600 has a percentile rank of 78 among all CPUs, while the GTX 1650 has a percentile rank of 40. The FPS scaling across resolutions and settings is consistent with GPU-bound behavior.

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

A: This combo ranks 3567 out of 3714 total combinations, placing it in the bottom 4% of all tested systems for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: The measured FPS shows High at 28 FPS and Ultra at 27 FPS, a difference of only 1 FPS. This suggests that the Ultra preset adds graphical features that the GPU cannot render effectively, providing no real benefit.

Q: Does the GTX 1650’s 4 GB VRAM affect performance?

A: Yes. The 4 GB VRAM is likely a constraint at 1440p and 4K, as the consistent FPS drops across settings indicate memory bandwidth and capacity limitations. The 4K Medium preset shows a minimum FPS of 19 and maximum of 26, suggesting frame time variance from texture swapping.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The following table presents all measured FPS data from the FACT PACK, organized by resolution and settings preset. All values are average FPS unless otherwise noted.

| Resolution | Settings | Avg FPS | Min FPS | Max FPS |

|------------|----------|---------|---------|---------|

| 1920x1080 | Low | 48 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Medium | 37 | 32 | 43 |

| 1920x1080 | High | 28 | — | — |

| 1920x1080 | Ultra | 27 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Low | 39 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Medium | 30 | 26 | 35 |

| 2560x1440 | High | 23 | — | — |

| 2560x1440 | Ultra | 22 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Low | 29 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Medium | 22 | 19 | 26 |

| 3840x2160 | High | 17 | — | — |

| 3840x2160 | Ultra | 16 | — | — |

The data shows a clear pattern: at every settings preset, the FPS drops by approximately 19% from 1080p to 1440p and by approximately 40% from 1080p to 4K. The Medium presets are the only ones with recorded minimum and maximum FPS values, indicating that this is the only preset where frame time variance was measured. At 1080p Medium, the 32 FPS minimum and 43 FPS maximum show a range of 11 FPS, while at 1440p Medium the range is 9 FPS (26 to 35), and at 4K Medium the range is 7 FPS (19 to 26). These ranges narrow as resolution increases, which further confirms that the GPU is operating at its limits and cannot produce sustained high framerates at any setting.

The best measured performance is 48 FPS at 1080p Low, which is the only configuration that exceeds 45 FPS. The worst measured performance is 16 FPS at 4K Ultra, which is the lowest average across all tested configurations. The gap between the best and worst settings — 32 FPS — highlights the GPU’s limited headroom and the dramatic impact of resolution scaling on this combination.