Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling

The measured FPS data for Microsoft Flight Simulator with the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT reveals a clear pattern of performance scaling as resolution increases. At 1920x1080 with Low settings, the combo delivers 103.2 FPS average. Moving to 2560x1440 at the same preset drops this to 82.1 FPS, a reduction of approximately 20% from the 1080p result. At 3840x2160, the Low preset yields 58.8 FPS, which is roughly 43% lower than the 1080p figure.

The scaling behavior under heavier settings tells a different story. At High settings, the average FPS goes from 59.9 at 1080p to 50.1 at 1440p, then to 33.8 at 4K. The gap between 1440p and 4K is particularly pronounced — a 32.5% drop — whereas the jump from 1080p to 1440p only costs 16.4%. This suggests the GPU becomes the limiting factor more aggressively as pixel count rises, especially when the visual workload is already demanding.

Ultra settings reinforce this interpretation. The average FPS at 1080p Ultra is 55.4, at 1440p Ultra it falls to 44.7, and at 4K Ultra it reaches 32.4. The 4K result is barely above the threshold for smooth simulation gameplay, indicating that the RX 6650 XT is stretched thin at this resolution when all quality options are maxed out. The difference between 1080p and 1440p Ultra is 19.3%, while the difference between 1440p and 4K Ultra is 27.5% — a steeper decline that points to memory bandwidth and raw fill rate constraints.

The data also shows how settings interact with resolution. At 4K, Low produces 58.8 FPS, Medium produces 48.9 FPS, High produces 33.8 FPS, and Ultra produces 32.4 FPS. The gap between High and Ultra at 4K is minimal (1.4 FPS), suggesting that the Ultra preset’s additional effects are largely bottlenecked by the GPU at this resolution. At 1080p, however, the spread is wider: Low hits 103.2 FPS, Medium 80 FPS, High 59.9 FPS, and Ultra 55.4 FPS. The CPU has more headroom at lower resolutions, allowing settings to scale more linearly.

How This Combo Ranks

In the benchmark database’s ranking of tested CPU-GPU combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator, this pairing sits at rank 1193 out of 1795 combos. That places it in the lower-middle portion of the field, meaning roughly two-thirds of tested configurations deliver higher average FPS in this specific title. The percentile position reflects the RX 6650 XT’s modest standing among GPUs — it ranks in the 72nd percentile against all GPUs — combined with a CPU that ranks in the 85th percentile against all CPUs.

The GPU’s nearest rivals in aggregate benchmark scores include the AMD Radeon RX 6800M with a deltaPct of 0, the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 0.1% higher, the Intel Arc A370M at 0.5% lower, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH at 0.6% lower. These are effectively performance peers in synthetic tests, though Microsoft Flight Simulator’s specific workload may shift the ordering. The CPU’s nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-13490F and AMD Ryzen 5 230, both at 0.3% higher aggregate scores, the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS at 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i5-14500T at 0.5% lower.

Given that the GPU sits near the 72nd percentile while the CPU sits near the 85th percentile, the bottleneck in this combo is clearly the graphics card for most settings and resolutions. The rank of 1193 out of 1795 reflects this imbalance — a stronger GPU paired with the same CPU would likely move the combo significantly higher, while a weaker CPU would not constrain this GPU much in a flight simulator that is typically GPU-bound at high resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS rows provide clear guidance for optimal settings. At 1920x1080, the Medium preset delivers 80 FPS average, which is comfortably smooth for a flight simulator where camera panning and dense scenery require consistent frame pacing. High drops to 59.9 FPS, still playable but closer to the edge for demanding scenarios like urban approach or stormy weather. Ultra at 55.4 FPS is acceptable but offers diminishing returns over High given the small frame rate difference.

At 2560x1440, Medium produces 64.3 FPS, which is the best balance of visual fidelity and smoothness. High at 50.1 FPS is workable for less demanding flight phases, but Ultra at 44.7 FPS may feel sluggish during fast maneuvers or when flying over detailed terrain. Low at 82.1 FPS is only recommended for competitive or recording scenarios where maximum frame rate is prioritized over visuals.

At 3840x2160, the situation is more constrained. Low yields 58.8 FPS and Medium 48.9 FPS, both of which are usable for casual flying. High at 33.8 FPS and Ultra at 32.4 FPS are borderline for simulation purposes — the data shows they are nearly identical, so if a user insists on 4K, High offers essentially the same performance as Ultra with slightly less visual complexity. The recommendation across all resolutions is to prioritize Medium or High settings, as the frame rate cost of Ultra is often disproportionate to the visual gain.

FAQ

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

A: 1920x1080 with Medium settings produces 80 FPS average, making it the most consistent experience. At 2560x1440, Medium still delivers 64.3 FPS, which is acceptable, while 3840x2160 requires dropping to Low or Medium for playable frame rates.

Q: How does the RX 6650 XT compare to its nearest GPU rivals in this game?

A: The data shows the RX 6650 XT’s aggregate benchmark score is within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon RX 470, Intel Arc A370M, and AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M is its closest match at a deltaPct of 0. These small deltas suggest similar in-game performance, though Microsoft Flight Simulator’s specific rendering path may favor one architecture over another.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 9600X holding back the RX 6650 XT?

A: The CPU ranks in the 85th percentile against all CPUs, while the GPU ranks in the 72nd percentile. This indicates the GPU is the limiting factor in most scenarios, especially at 1440p and 4K. The CPU’s 6 cores and 12 threads with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz provide ample headroom for the simulator’s single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

Q: What is the difference between High and Ultra settings at 4K?

A: At 3840x2160, High averages 33.8 FPS and Ultra averages 32.4 FPS, a difference of only 1.4 FPS. This negligible gap suggests the GPU is fully saturated at both presets, making Ultra a poor trade-off for its minimal visual benefit at this resolution.

Q: Can this combo achieve 60 FPS at any resolution?

A: Yes, at 1920x1080 with Low settings it reaches 103.2 FPS and with Medium it reaches 80 FPS. At 2560x1440, Low hits 82.1 FPS. At 4K, no preset reaches 60 FPS — the highest is Low at 58.8 FPS.

Q: How does the combo rank among all tested configurations?

A: It ranks 1193 out of 1795 combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the lower-middle tier, reflecting the GPU’s mid-range standing despite the CPU’s above-average performance.

GPU Role

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It features 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2190 MHz with 17.5 Gbps effective speed. The GPU’s base clock is 2055 MHz, with a game clock of 2410 MHz and a boost clock of 2635 MHz. It contains 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 168.6 GPixel/s and texture rate is 337.3 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 10.79 TFLOPS.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the GPU’s 8 GB VRAM appears sufficient at the tested settings, as the frame rate drops from 1080p to 4K follow a predictable pattern tied to fill rate rather than memory capacity. The 128-bit bus and 280.3 GB/s bandwidth are moderate for the resolution demands, which explains the steep performance falloff at 4K Ultra. The RX 6650 XT’s 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the upper-mid range, but the game’s high-resolution textures and complex geometry push it toward its limits above 1440p.

The GPU’s benchmark results show a PassMark G3D score of 17166, with a DirectX 12 score of 62 and a DirectX 11 score of 169. These numbers indicate the card handles modern APIs reasonably well, though the DirectX 12 result is relatively low compared to the G3D aggregate, suggesting the game’s DX12 path may not be fully optimized for this architecture. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1859 reinforces that the card is not a top-tier performer under heavy load.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 5 9600X is a 6-core, 12-thread processor from the 9000 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Granite Ridge codename. It operates on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The CPU has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and runs on the AMD Socket AM5 platform. Its TDP is 65 W, and it includes Radeon integrated graphics, though the discrete GPU handles all rendering in this test.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU’s role is primarily handling simulation logic, physics, and AI traffic, which are often single-threaded or lightly threaded. The 9600X’s single-core performance is strong — its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 3603 and its Geekbench single-core score is 3363. The multi-core scores are also respectable: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 25525 and Geekbench multi-core at 15182. The 3DMark single-thread score of 1253 and 2-thread score of 2456 indicate that the CPU scales well with the limited thread counts that flight simulators typically use.

The CPU’s 85th percentile ranking against all CPUs means it outperforms the vast majority of processors in aggregate benchmarks. Its nearest rivals in aggregate score are the Intel Core i5-13490F and AMD Ryzen 5 230, both within 0.3%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS and Intel Core i5-14500T, both within 0.5%. This tight grouping suggests that in CPU-bound scenarios, the 9600X will perform nearly identically to these alternatives. However, since the GPU is the bottleneck at most settings in this game, the CPU’s advantage is not fully realized in the measured FPS data. The 5.40 GHz boost clock provides the high-frequency responsiveness needed for the simulator’s frame timing, but the measured results show that even with this strong CPU, the RX 6650 XT caps performance at lower resolutions and settings.