Microsoft Flight Simulator

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D paired with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a severely unbalanced combination for Microsoft Flight Simulator, ranking 1758th out of 1795 tested combos. The data indicates that the GTX 1650 is the definitive bottleneck, unable to deliver playable frame rates at any resolution above 1080p Low, while the CPU's substantial cache and core resources remain largely underutilized.

FAQ

Q: What is the overall performance ranking of this CPU and GPU combination in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

A: This combo ranks 1758th out of 1795 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 2% of all systems tested. This indicates a fundamental performance ceiling that prevents a satisfactory experience in this specific title.

Q: How does the Ryzen 7 5800X3D compare to its closest CPU rivals in general benchmark scores?

A: The CPU's average benchmark score is 26574, which is nearly identical to its nearest rivals. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 8024P and Intel Core i9-11900K, and 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7600. The performance difference between these processors is negligible.

Q: What is the best average frame rate achieved by this combo, and at what settings?

A: The highest average frame rate recorded is 50.5 FPS, achieved at 1920x1080 resolution with Low settings. This is the only configuration in the measured data that approaches a playable threshold, though it still falls short of a smooth 60 FPS target.

Q: How does the GTX 1650's benchmark score compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GPU's average benchmark score is 8713. It is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and AMD Radeon 550X, and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2200. The performance delta between these cards is minimal.

Q: What is the frame rate difference between Low and Ultra settings at 1080p?

A: At 1920x1080, the average frame rate drops from 50.5 FPS on Low settings to 24.9 FPS on Ultra settings. This represents a performance reduction of roughly half, demonstrating the significant cost of higher visual fidelity on this GPU.

Q: Is the CPU or GPU more responsible for the low frame rates in this game?

A: The data strongly points to the GPU as the limiting factor. While the CPU has a high average benchmark score of 26574, the GPU's score is only 8713. The massive drop in frame rates when increasing resolution and settings is characteristic of a GPU bottleneck.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the primary constraint in this configuration for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s memory bandwidth are insufficient for the high-resolution textures and complex scenery that the game renders. The GPU's base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, but these clocks are largely irrelevant when the memory subsystem and raw compute power are overwhelmed.

The benchmark results confirm this bottleneck. The GPU's average benchmark score of 8713 places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is a low-to-mid-range part. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 550X and NVIDIA Quadro P2200, all of which have similar average scores. In the game itself, the measured FPS reveals the GPU's limitations clearly. At 3840x2160, the average frame rate never exceeds 25.4 FPS even on Low settings. The GPU's 4 GB VRAM is likely a primary cause, as it struggles to hold the necessary assets for Flight Simulator's detailed world, leading to severe performance degradation. The GTX 1650 lacks ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which are not directly relevant to this game, but its 896 shading units are simply not enough to process the simulation's graphical load at acceptable speeds.

How This Combo Ranks

This specific pairing of the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 achieves a rank of 1758 out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. This places it in the 2nd percentile, meaning that 97.9% of all tested systems perform better. This ranking is a direct consequence of the vast performance disparity between the two components.

The CPU is a top-tier part, with an average benchmark score of 26574 and a percentile rank of 83 among all CPUs. It is essentially tied with the AMD EPYC 8024P and Intel Core i9-11900K, showing it can match the best in class. In contrast, the GPU is a bottom-tier part for modern gaming, with an average benchmark score of 8713 and a percentile rank of 43. This pairing creates a severe bottleneck, where the GPU cannot keep up with the CPU's ability to feed it data. The low combo rank is not a reflection of the CPU's capability but of the GPU's inability to translate that capability into frame rate in a graphically demanding title like Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data shows a clear and predictable pattern of performance degradation as resolution and settings increase. At 1920x1080, the combo delivers an average of 50.5 FPS on Low settings, 36.2 FPS on Medium, 26.6 FPS on High, and 24.9 FPS on Ultra. This shows that even at the lowest resolution, the system struggles to maintain a consistent 60 FPS, and the drop from Low to Ultra is a substantial 47%.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance falls further. The average frame rate is 35.4 FPS on Low, 28.3 FPS on Medium, 22.1 FPS on Ultra, and 19.8 FPS on High. Notably, the High setting at 1440p performs worse than the Ultra setting at the same resolution, likely due to specific in-game rendering paths, but all results are below the threshold for smooth gameplay.

At 3840x2160 (4K), the system is effectively overwhelmed. The average frame rate is 25.4 FPS on Low, 23.8 FPS on Medium, 17.5 FPS on Ultra, and 14.8 FPS on High. None of these numbers are playable, confirming that 4K resolution is entirely out of the question for this hardware. The data shows a consistent and steep decline in performance, proving the GPU is the sole limiting factor.

Resolution Scaling

The frame rate scaling from 1080p to 4K highlights the GPU bottleneck with absolute clarity. At Low settings, the average FPS drops from 50.5 at 1920x1080 to 35.4 at 2560x1440 and finally to 25.4 at 3840x2160. This is a reduction of 30% from 1080p to 1440p, and a further 28% from 1440p to 4K.

This pattern is consistent across all settings. For example, on Medium settings, the average FPS goes from 36.2 at 1080p to 28.3 at 1440p and 23.8 at 4K. The scaling is not perfectly linear due to the game's engine and memory pressure, but the trend is unmistakable. As the resolution increases, the pixel count and memory bandwidth requirements grow exponentially. The GTX 1650, with its 4 GB of VRAM and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, cannot handle this increased workload. If the CPU were the bottleneck, the frame rates would remain relatively flat across resolutions, as the CPU's workload does not change significantly with resolution. The fact that frame rates plummet with resolution is definitive proof that the graphics card is the limiting component.

Settings Recommendations

Based on the measured data, the only viable settings for a playable experience are at 1920x1080 with the Low preset, which yields an average of 50.5 FPS. This is the only configuration that approaches a smooth frame rate, though it may still experience dips in busy areas. The Low preset is the only option that allows the GTX 1650 to keep up with the simulation's demands.

All other settings and resolution combinations result in average frame rates below 40 FPS, which is generally considered too low for a smooth flight simulation experience. The Medium preset at 1080p produces 36.2 FPS, which is a significant drop from Low. The High and Ultra presets at 1080p produce 26.6 and 24.9 FPS respectively, which are not recommended. At 1440p and 4K, even the Low preset fails to deliver a playable experience, with average frame rates of 35.4 and 25.4 FPS respectively. Therefore, the data clearly suggests that users must accept the Low preset at 1080p to get the best playable experience, sacrificing visual quality for functional performance.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a high-performance CPU that is not the cause of the low frame rates in this test. The processor features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Its most notable asset is the large 96 MB of shared L3 cache, which is designed to improve gaming performance by reducing memory latency.

The CPU's benchmark scores confirm its strength. Its average benchmark score is 26574, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. It is essentially tied with the AMD EPYC 8024P and Intel Core i9-11900K, which are both high-end server and desktop processors. In synthetic tests like Cinebench R23, it scores 24063 in multi-core and 3397 in single-core, demonstrating excellent capability.

However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, this CPU power is not utilized effectively. As established, the GPU is the bottleneck. The CPU's role is to feed the GPU with data, and it is doing so at a rate far faster than the GPU can process. The combination's low rank is not a CPU issue; it is a direct result of pairing a powerful processor with a weak graphics card. The CPU has the headroom to support a much more powerful GPU, but with the GTX 1650, its performance is capped by the graphics card's output.