Microsoft Flight Simulator

Resolution Scaling — how FPS drops from 1080p to 4K and what it says about the limiting component

The measured data reveals a steep and predictable performance curve as resolution climbs. At 1080p Low, the system delivers 48.9 FPS, which drops to 38.6 at 1440p and further to 29.6 at 4K. That is a 39.5% reduction from 1080p to 4K at Low settings. At High settings, the progression runs 30.4 → 24.8 → 17.2 FPS, a 43.4% loss from 1080p to 4K. The pattern is consistent: each resolution step costs roughly 20-25% of the previous frame rate.

This scaling behavior points directly at the GPU as the primary constraint. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rate would remain relatively flat across resolutions, since the same number of draw calls and simulation updates would be required regardless of pixel count. Instead, the consistent drop suggests the GTX 1650's rendering pipeline is saturated. The 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are likely also stressed at 4K, where texture and geometry data exceed what the memory subsystem can efficiently feed.

The gap between Low and Ultra settings widens with resolution, which further implicates the GPU. At 1080p, Low produces 48.9 FPS versus 25.0 at Ultra, a 1.96x difference. At 4K, the same comparison yields 29.6 versus 13.7 FPS, a 2.16x spread. The slightly larger multiplier at 4K indicates that the additional shading work and memory pressure from Ultra settings are amplified when pixel count is highest. The CPU, an 8-core Zen 3 part with a 4.60 GHz boost clock, has ample headroom to feed the GPU at all tested resolutions; the data suggests the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is the ceiling.

Interestingly, the 4K Ultra result of 13.7 FPS is barely above the threshold for a slideshow, while 1080p Low approaches playable territory. The resolution scaling curve is steep enough that users targeting smooth flight simulation will likely need to stay at 1080p or accept significant compromises at higher resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured rows provide a clear hierarchy of playability. At 1080p, Low settings yield 48.9 FPS, Medium drops to 37.6, High to 30.4, and Ultra to 25.0. The jump from Low to Medium costs 11.3 FPS, while Medium to High costs 7.2 FPS. For a flight simulator where smooth camera panning and instrument readability matter, the data suggests Low or Medium presets at 1080p offer the best balance. Low provides a comfortable margin above 30 FPS, while Medium stays above 30 with improved visual fidelity.

At 1440p, only Low (38.6 FPS) exceeds the 30 FPS threshold. Medium produces 31.5, which is borderline, and High falls to 24.8. Ultra at 21.9 FPS is likely too choppy for realistic flight dynamics. At 4K, all presets fail to reach 30 FPS, with Low at 29.6 being the sole option close to playable. The data indicates that 4K is not viable for this combination unless the user accepts sub-30 FPS performance.

The most interesting finding is the Medium preset at 1080p. It delivers 37.6 FPS, which is 77% of the Low result but with substantially better visual quality. Given that the GPU's percentile rank is 43rd among all GPUs, this system is not designed for high-fidelity rendering. The measured data suggests that Medium at 1080p is the "sweet spot" for users who want playable frame rates without sacrificing all visual detail. For those prioritizing frame rate above all, Low at 1080p is the only preset that approaches 50 FPS.

FAQ

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

A: Yes, but only at Low settings, where it achieves 29.6 FPS. Medium drops to 22.0, High to 17.2, and Ultra to 13.7. All 4K results are below the 30 FPS threshold commonly considered playable.

Q: What is the best resolution for this CPU and GPU combination?

A: The data shows 1080p is the only resolution where any preset exceeds 40 FPS. At 1080p Low, the system reaches 48.9 FPS, and Medium produces 37.6 FPS. At 1440p, the best result is 38.6 FPS on Low, which is still playable but with less headroom.

Q: How much performance is lost when switching from Low to Ultra settings?

A: At 1080p, the drop is from 48.9 to 25.0 FPS, a 48.9% reduction. At 1440p, it falls from 38.6 to 21.9 FPS (43.3% loss). At 4K, the decline is from 29.6 to 13.7 FPS, representing a 53.7% decrease.

Q: Is the Ryzen 7 5700G holding back the GTX 1650 in this game?

A: The benchmark data does not indicate CPU limitation. The 5700G has 8 cores and 16 threads with a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, and its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20755 places it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. The resolution scaling pattern suggests the GPU is the limiting factor.

Q: What frame rate can I expect at 1080p with High settings?

A: The measured average is 30.4 FPS. This is right at the playability threshold. Medium settings at 37.6 FPS would provide a smoother experience with only a modest visual downgrade.

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

A: The combination ranks 1710th out of 1795 tested combos for this game, placing it in the bottom 5% of systems. This reflects the GTX 1650's modest performance profile rather than the CPU, which is significantly stronger relative to other processors.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the full settings sweep produces a clear performance ladder. Low leads with 48.9 FPS, followed by Medium at 37.6, High at 30.4, and Ultra at 25.0. The 23.9 FPS spread between Low and Ultra demonstrates the significant cost of enabling the game's highest visual features. Each step down in quality recovers roughly 7-11 FPS, with the Low-to-Medium transition providing the largest single gain.

Moving to 2560x1440, the results compress downward. Low delivers 38.6 FPS, Medium 31.5, High 24.8, and Ultra 21.9. The spread narrows to 16.7 FPS, indicating that pixel count begins to dominate over settings. Notably, the 1440p Medium result (31.5) nearly matches the 1080p High result (30.4), suggesting that resolution and settings have roughly interchangeable performance costs in this system.

At 3840x2160, all settings produce sub-30 FPS results. Low achieves 29.6, Medium 22.0, High 17.2, and Ultra 13.7. The spread further narrows to 15.9 FPS. The 4K Low result is just barely below the 1080p High result, highlighting how severely 4K resolution taxes the GTX 1650. The progression from 1080p Low (48.9) to 4K Low (29.6) represents a 39.5% loss, while 1080p Ultra to 4K Ultra shows a 45.2% loss, reinforcing that the GPU's rendering throughput and memory bandwidth are the decisive constraints.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a Turing-architecture GPU built on a 12 nm process with 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory operates on a 128-bit bus, yielding 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU's base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, producing 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The 75 W TDP and absence of power connectors indicate a power-efficient design, but also a hard ceiling on sustained performance.

In this game, the GTX 1650's 4 GB frame buffer is likely a limiting factor at higher resolutions and settings. Microsoft Flight Simulator is known for large texture sets and complex scenery data, and 4 GB can be exhausted at 1440p or 4K with High or Ultra presets. The bandwidth figure of 128.1 GB/s is modest by modern standards, and the measured FPS drops at 4K suggest the memory subsystem cannot keep up with the pixel throughput demands.

The GPU's benchmark profile shows a Passmark G3D score of 7880 and a 43rd percentile ranking among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 3050 A Mobile (delta -0.4%) and Radeon Pro WX 5100 (delta -0.5%), indicating the 1650 sits at a performance tier where small architectural differences matter. The measured FPS results align with this positioning: the card can handle 1080p at playable frame rates but struggles beyond that.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G is a Zen 3 (Cezanne) processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, base clocked at 3.80 GHz and boosting to 4.60 GHz. It features 16 MB of L3 cache, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 KB of L1 per core. The 7 nm TSMC process packs 10,700 million transistors into a 180 mm² die. The CPU's 65 W TDP and dual-channel DDR4 memory support (51.2 GB/s bandwidth) make it a solid mid-range desktop part.

In synthetic benchmarks, the 5700G posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 20755 and a single-core score of 2930. Its Passmark multithread score is 24419, with a single-thread score of 3283. The 3DMark 16-thread result of 6629 and max-thread score of 6627 show consistent scaling across thread counts. The CPU ranks in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 25626.

For Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's role is to handle the simulation logic, physics, and draw call preparation. The 5700G's 8 cores and 16 threads provide ample parallel processing capability, and the 4.60 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-thread performance, which is critical for the game's main thread. The benchmark data suggests the CPU is not the bottleneck: the FPS drops as resolution increases, which would not happen if the CPU were the limiting factor. The 5700G's nearest rivals include the Ryzen 7 6800U (delta -0.3%) and Intel Core 5 210H (delta 0.5%), all within 0.6% performance, indicating the CPU is well-matched to its performance class.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination of the Ryzen 7 5700G and GTX 1650 ranks 1710th out of 1795 tested combinations for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the bottom 4.7% of all tested systems, which is a stark contrast to the CPU's individual 83rd percentile ranking. The discrepancy highlights the GPU's dominant role in determining this game's performance: a strong CPU cannot compensate for a GPU that ranks in the 43rd percentile.

The ranking implies that the vast majority of tested systems deliver higher frame rates than this combo. The measured FPS data confirms this: even at 1080p Low, the system only reaches 48.9 FPS, while many other combinations would likely achieve 60 FPS or higher at similar settings. The 4K Ultra result of 13.7 FPS is particularly telling, as it suggests the system is only suitable for the most forgiving scenarios.

The data also reveals an interesting asymmetry. The CPU's nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average benchmark score, suggesting the 5700G is a "known quantity" in terms of processing power. The GPU's nearest rivals, including the RTX 3050 A Mobile (delta -0.4%) and Quadro P2200 (delta 0.5%), are similarly close. Yet the combo's in-game ranking is far below what either component's individual percentile would suggest, indicating that Microsoft Flight Simulator is heavily GPU-bound and that the GTX 1650's 4 GB memory and 2.984 TFLOPS throughput are simply insufficient for this title's demands at higher quality settings. Users with this combination should expect to play at 1080p with reduced settings to achieve acceptable frame rates.