Microsoft Flight Simulator

# Microsoft Flight Simulator with AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

This combination of an 8-core AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT processor with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 graphics card ranks 1755th out of 1795 tested combos in Microsoft Flight Simulator. That places this pairing in the bottom 3% of all configurations tested, a striking result given the CPU's relatively strong standing among processors. The data reveals a system where the graphics card severely limits performance, creating a bottleneck that no amount of CPU capability can overcome. The measured frame rates across all resolutions and settings confirm this imbalance, with even the most favorable settings failing to produce smooth gameplay.

How This Combo Ranks

The combo rank of 1755 out of 1795 places this configuration in the 2.2% percentile of all tested pairings for Microsoft Flight Simulator. This is a remarkably low standing, and the data suggests the GPU is almost entirely responsible. The GTX 1650 holds a percentile of 43 against all GPUs, meaning it outperforms only 43% of graphics cards in general benchmarks. Its average benchmark score of 8713 places it within 0.5% of rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8671) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8761), indicating it sits in a narrow performance band that is simply insufficient for this flight simulator's demands.

The processor tells a different story. The Ryzen 7 5800XT ranks in the 86th percentile against all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 29774. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (29740, 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (29856, 0.3% behind). This CPU is competitive with modern mobile and desktop parts, yet the combo ranking shows that CPU strength matters little when the GPU cannot keep pace. The 8-core, 16-thread processor with a 4.80 GHz boost clock is capable, but Microsoft Flight Simulator's frame rates are dictated by the GTX 1650's 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The data strongly implies that upgrading the GPU would yield dramatic improvements, while the CPU has ample headroom.

Settings Recommendations

Across every resolution tested, the Low preset delivers the highest average frame rates, and the margin is substantial. At 1920x1080, Low produces 46.9 FPS compared to Medium's 39.9 FPS and High's 28.4 FPS. The jump from Low to Medium costs roughly 15% performance, while High and Ultra both hover around 28 FPS, showing a sharp drop-off after Medium. At 2560x1440, Low achieves 35.6 FPS, which is playable, but Medium falls to 30.9 FPS and High drops to 19.9 FPS. For 3840x2160, even Low only reaches 25.8 FPS, which is borderline for gameplay.

The data suggests that Low is the only viable preset for a playable experience, and even then, only at 1080p or 1440p. The Ultra preset offers no meaningful advantage over High, with nearly identical frame rates at 1080p (28.3 vs 28.4 FPS) and identical rates at 4K (13.8 FPS for both). This suggests that the Ultra preset's additional graphical features are not being fully rendered due to GPU limitations, or that the settings are CPU-bound in ways that the GTX 1650 cannot exploit. For users prioritizing smoothness, Low at 1080p is the only configuration that approaches 60 FPS, and even then, it falls short at 46.9 FPS.

Resolution Scaling

The resolution scaling data reveals a steep performance cliff as pixel count increases. At 1080p Low, the system produces 46.9 FPS. Moving to 1440p Low drops this to 35.6 FPS, a 24% reduction. At 4K Low, the frame rate falls to 25.8 FPS, another 28% drop from 1440p. This pattern holds across all settings, but the absolute numbers become increasingly unplayable. For High settings, 1080p yields 28.4 FPS, 1440p drops to 19.9 FPS, and 4K falls to 13.8 FPS. The scaling from 1080p to 4K at High represents a 51% loss in frame rate.

These results indicate that the GTX 1650 is the primary limiting component. The GPU's 4 GB memory buffer and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for the texture and geometry loads at higher resolutions. The fact that Low settings at 4K (25.8 FPS) barely outperform High settings at 1080p (28.4 FPS) suggests that the GPU is saturated regardless of settings, and resolution has a more direct impact on performance than quality presets. The CPU, with its 8 cores and 16 threads, is likely idle waiting for the GPU to complete each frame, especially at lower resolutions where the frame rate is higher but still constrained by the graphics card's fill rate and shading throughput.

FAQ

Q: Is this combination playable at 1080p with any settings?

A: At 1920x1080, the Low preset achieves 46.9 FPS, which is playable but not smooth. Medium drops to 39.9 FPS, while High and Ultra both fall to approximately 28 FPS, which is below the threshold for comfortable gameplay.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 compare to its nearest rivals in general benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 8713 in average benchmarks, with the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 at 8671 (0.5% lower) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8761 (0.5% higher). This places it in a tight performance band with professional workstation cards.

Q: What is the best resolution for this combo if using Low settings?

A: At 1920x1080 Low, the system achieves 46.9 FPS. At 2560x1440 Low, it drops to 35.6 FPS. At 3840x2160 Low, it falls to 25.8 FPS. The 1080p Low setting offers the highest frame rate, though still below 60 FPS.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 5800XT compensate for the GTX 1650's limitations?

A: No. Despite the CPU ranking in the 86th percentile overall, the combo ranks 1755th out of 1795 for this game. The data shows that the GPU is the bottleneck, and the CPU's 8 cores and 16 threads cannot improve frame rates when the graphics card is saturated.

Q: Are there any settings where the frame rate exceeds 50 FPS?

A: No. The highest measured frame rate is 46.9 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. No other resolution or preset combination reaches 50 FPS.

Q: How does the GPU's memory capacity affect performance?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. At 4K resolution, even Low settings only achieve 25.8 FPS, indicating that memory capacity and bandwidth are insufficient for the high-resolution texture loads in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

GPU Role

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the dominant factor in this combo's poor performance. With 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, the GPU delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz are modest by modern standards, and the 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, but this is insufficient for a flight simulator that streams large terrain and scenery data.

The GPU's percentile of 43 against all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 8713 place it near the bottom quartile. In the measured FPS data, the GPU's limitations are stark: at 1080p Ultra, the system only achieves 28.3 FPS, and at 4K Ultra, it falls to 13.8 FPS. The GPU's DirectX 12 support (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility do not compensate for its raw throughput limitations. The 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate that this is a low-power card, and the data shows that it does not have the thermal or power headroom to sustain high frame rates in demanding titles. The GPU's 43rd percentile ranking means it outperforms fewer than half of all tested graphics cards, and in a game as demanding as Microsoft Flight Simulator, that places it in a severely underpowered position.

CPU Role

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800XT provides substantial processing capability that goes largely unused in this configuration. With 8 cores and 16 threads, base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz, this Zen 3 (Vermeer) processor on the AMD Socket AM4 platform has a 105 W TDP. Its 32 MB of L3 cache and 4,150 million transistors on a 7 nm process give it strong computational performance, reflected in its 86th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 29774. In 3DMark tests, it scores 959 in single-thread and 7680 in max threads, showing excellent scaling across cores.

However, in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU's multi-threading capabilities cannot overcome the GPU bottleneck. The CPU's nearest rivals — the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE (29740, 0.1% ahead) and AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS (29856, 0.3% behind) — show that the 5800XT is competitive with other mid-range processors, yet the combo ranking remains low. The CPU's passmark multithread score of 27988 and Cinebench R23 multicore score of 23794 indicate that it can handle complex simulation calculations, but the frame rate data shows that the system is not CPU-limited. The fact that Ultra settings at 1080p (28.3 FPS) are nearly identical to High settings (28.4 FPS) suggests that the CPU is not the constraining factor; rather, the GPU's inability to render frames faster is the bottleneck. The CPU's 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and dual-channel DDR4 support are ample for this workload, and the data implies that pairing this CPU with a more powerful GPU would yield dramatically better results.

Measured FPS Breakdown

At 1920x1080, the system produces 46.9 FPS on Low settings, 39.9 FPS on Medium, 28.4 FPS on High, and 28.3 FPS on Ultra. The gap between Low and Medium is 7 FPS, but the gap between Medium and High is 11.5 FPS, indicating a sharp performance cliff as settings increase. At 2560x1440, Low achieves 35.6 FPS, Medium drops to 30.9 FPS, High falls to 19.9 FPS, and Ultra reaches 21.9 FPS. The 1440p High and Ultra results are nearly identical to 1080p High and Ultra, suggesting that the GPU is saturated at these quality levels regardless of resolution.

At 3840x2160, the results are uniformly poor: Low produces 25.8 FPS, Medium 21.3 FPS, and both High and Ultra hit 13.8 FPS. The 4K High and Ultra readings are identical at 13.8 FPS, which strongly indicates that the GPU has reached its absolute rendering limit. The scaling from 1080p Low (46.9 FPS) to 4K Low (25.8 FPS) represents a 45% reduction, while the scaling from 1080p Ultra (28.3 FPS) to 4K Ultra (13.8 FPS) is a 51% reduction. These figures highlight that the GTX 1650 is the limiting component across all configurations, and the CPU's performance is irrelevant to the final frame rate. The data is consistent: no setting or resolution combination in the measured rows produces a frame rate above 50 FPS, and the only configuration approaching playability is 1080p Low at 46.9 FPS.